[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1252419602.7746.73.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:20:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <onestero@...hat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] lru_add_drain_all() vs isolation
On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 10:03 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > This is about avoiding work when there is non, clearly when an
> > application does use the kernel it creates work.
>
> Hmmm. The lru draining in page migration is to reduce the number of pages
> that are not on the lru to increase the chance of page migration to be
> successful. A page on a per cpu list cannot be drained.
>
> Reducing the number of cpus where we perform the drain results in
> increased likelyhood that we cannot migrate a page because its on the per
> cpu lists of a cpu not covered.
Did you even read the patch?
There is _no_ functional difference between before and after, except
less wakeups on cpus that don't have any __lru_cache_add activity.
If there's pages on the per cpu lru_add_pvecs list it will be present in
the mask and will be send a drain request. If its not, then it won't be
send.
--
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