On Wednesday 22 February 2006 17:00, Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:23:22PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Aside from the possible race we talked about in __rcu_process_callbacks,
> > I don't have huge objections here. But if the underlying problem is the
> > cost of kmem_cache_free, would it be better to limit that instead of
> > trying to push the latency around to specific cpus?
>
> The current problem is the cost of kmem_cache_free. What this
> patch will do (versus limiting the cost of kmem_cache_free, if
> that's at all possible) is to protect the cpus configured as
> such against other costly sections of code that may be lurking
> or that might be added in the future.
Right, but I'm suggesting that we might want to fix kmem_cache_free as well.
I think your patch has value even with kmem_cache_free fixed. Given that the
high cost parts of kmem_cache_free seem to be numa specific, fixing it seems
like a good idea in general.
-chris
-
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]
