On Wed, 16 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So its no use on NUMA?
>
> It is, its just that we're swapping very heavily at that point, a
> bouncing cache-line will not significantly slow down the box compared to
> waiting for block IO, will it?
How does all of this interact with
1. cpusets
2. dma allocations and highmem?
3. Containers?
> > The problem here is that you may spinlock and take out the slab for one
> > cpu but then (AFAICT) other cpus can still not get their high priority
> > allocs satisfied. Some comments follow.
>
> All cpus are redirected to ->reserve_slab when the regular allocations
> start to fail.
And the reserve slab is refilled from page allocator reserves if needed?
> > But this is only working if we are using the slab after
> > explicitly flushing the cpuslabs. Otherwise the slab may be full and we
> > get to alloc_slab.
>
> /me fails to parse.
s->cpu[cpu] is only NULL if the cpu slab was flushed. This is a pretty
rare case likely not worth checking.
> > Remove the above two lines (they are wrong regardless) and simply make
> > this the cpu slab.
>
> It need not be the same node; the reserve_slab is node agnostic.
> So here the free page watermarks are good again, and we can forget all
> about the ->reserve_slab. We just push it on the free/partial lists and
> forget about it.
>
> But like you said above: unfreeze_slab() should be good, since I don't
> use the lockless_freelist.
You could completely bypass the regular allocation functions and do
object = s->reserve_slab->freelist;
s->reserve_slab->freelist = object[s->reserve_slab->offset];
-
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]
