[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081024045547.GA24555@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 06:55:47 +0200
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] lru_add_drain_all() don't use schedule_on_each_cpu()
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:54:46PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, schedule_on_each_cpu() is very problematic function.
> > > it introduce the dependency of all worker on keventd_wq,
> > > but we can't know what lock held by worker in kevend_wq because
> > > keventd_wq is widely used out of kernel drivers too.
> > >
> > > So, the task of any lock held shouldn't wait on keventd_wq.
> > > Its task should use own special purpose work queue.
> >
> > I don't see a better way to solve it, other than avoiding lru_add_drain_all
>
> Well,
>
> Unfortunately, lru_add_drain_all is also used some other VM place
> (page migration and memory hotplug).
> and page migration's usage is the same of this mlock usage.
> (1. grab mmap_sem 2. call lru_add_drain_all)
>
> Then, change mlock usage isn't solution ;-)
No, not mlock alone.
--
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