[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1252423637.7746.99.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:27:16 +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 11:22 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Ok I see.
>
> A global cpu mask like this will cause cacheline bouncing. After all this
> is a hot cpu path. Maybe do not set the bit if its already set
> (which may be very frequent)? Then add some benchmarks to show that it
> does not cause a regression on a 16p box (Nehalem) or so?
Yeah, testing the bit before poking at is sounds like a good plan.
Unless someone feels inclined to finish this and audit the kernel for
more such places, I'll stick it on the ever growing todo pile.
--
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