[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45DB6FC7.60502@qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:01:43 -0800
From: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Gautham shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: slab: start_cpu_timer/cache_reap CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU problems
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>
>> I guess I kind of hijacked the thread. The second part of my first email was
>> dropped. Basically I was saying that I'm working on CPU isolation extensions.
>> Where an isolated CPU is not supposed to do much kernel work. In which case
>> you'd want to run slab cache reaper on some other CPU on behalf of the
>> isolated
>> one. Hence the proposal to explicitly pass cpu_id to the reaper. I guess now
>> that you guys fixed the hotplug case it does not help in that scenario.
>
> A cpu must have a per cpu cache in order to do slab allocations. The
> locking in the slab allocator depends on it.
>
> If the isolated cpus have no need for slab allocations then you will also
> not need to run the slab_reaper().
Ok. Sounds like disabling cache_reaper is a better option for now. Like you said
it's unlikely that slabs will grow much if that cpu is not heavily used by the
kernel.
Thanks
Max
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists