On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 06:14:22PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > - if (atomic_read(sk->sk_prot->memory_allocated) < sk->sk_prot->sysctl_mem[0]) {
> > + if (percpu_counter_read(sk->sk_prot->memory_allocated) <
> > + sk->sk_prot->sysctl_mem[0]) {
>
> Bear in mind that percpu_counter_read[_positive] can be inaccurate on large
> CPU counts.
>
> It might be worth running percpu_counter_sum() to get the exact count if we
> think we're about to cause something to fail.
The problem is percpu_counter_sum has to read all the cpus cachelines. If
we have to use percpu_counter_sum everywhere, then might as well use plain
per-cpu counters instead of batching ones no?
sysctl_mem[0] is about 196K and on a 16 cpu box variance is 512 bytes, which
is OK with just percpu_counter_read I hope. Maybe, on very large cpu counts,
we should just change the FBC_BATCH so that variance does not go quadratic.
Something like 32. So that variance is 32 * NR_CPUS in that case, instead
of (NR_CPUS * NR_CPUS * 2) currently. Comments?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
