[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1245077891.23207.48.camel@penberg-laptop>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:58:11 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
lizf@...fujitsu.com, mingo@...e.hu, npiggin@...e.de,
yinghai@...nel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL v2] Early SLAB fixes for 2.6.31
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 10:55 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
>
> > How about something like this? There should be no extra code in fastpaths
> > for production configs with this one.
>
> Yes something like that would be good. More comments below.
>
> > index 4d6004c..5e8cea1 100644
> > --- a/mm/slub.c
> > +++ b/mm/slub.c
> > @@ -1613,6 +1613,8 @@ another_slab:
> > deactivate_slab(s, c);
> >
> > new_slab:
> > + gfpflags &= slab_gfp_mask;
> > +
>
> Move the processing of GFP_RECLAIM_MASK etc up to here from new_slab? Then
> the flow is also more logical. The flags handling is concentrated in one
> spot in the allocator and its more obvious how we handle gfp flags.
Sure. Will fix.
> > @@ -1668,13 +1670,14 @@ static __always_inline void *slab_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s,
> > struct kmem_cache_cpu *c;
> > unsigned long flags;
> > unsigned int objsize;
> > + gfp_t real_gfp;
> >
> > - gfpflags &= slab_gfp_mask;
> > + real_gfp = gfpflags & slab_gfp_mask;
> >
> > - lockdep_trace_alloc(gfpflags);
> > - might_sleep_if(gfpflags & __GFP_WAIT);
> > + lockdep_trace_alloc(real_gfp);
> > + might_sleep_if(real_gfp & __GFP_WAIT);
> >
> > - if (should_failslab(s->objsize, gfpflags))
> > + if (should_failslab(s->objsize, real_gfp))
> > return NULL;
> >
> > local_irq_save(flags);
>
> Dont do it there. Only modify the slow path.
>
> Look at __might_sleep(). It already has an exception for system_state !=
> RUNNING. If it still triggers then add to the condition there.
But does this matter? When the debugging options are turned off, there
are no users for "real_gfp" and thus GCC optimizes everything away. For
debugging configs, the extra cacheline load doesn't matter, does it?
--
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