[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100206155624.GA2777@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:56:24 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, submit@...stfloor.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, haicheng.li@...el.com,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [1/4] SLAB: Handle node-not-up case in fallback_alloc()
> If a hot-added node has not been initialized for the cache, your code is
> picking an existing one in zonelist order which may be excluded by
> current's cpuset. Thus, your code has a very real chance of having
> kmem_getpages() return NULL because get_page_from_freelist() will reject
> non-atomic ALLOC_CPUSET allocations for prohibited nodes. That isn't a
> scenario that requires a "funny cpuset," it just has to not allow whatever
> initialized node comes first in the zonelist.
The point was that you would need to run whoever triggers the memory
hotadd in a cpuset with limitations. That would be a clear
don't do that if hurts(tm)
> My suggested alternative does not pick a single initialized node, rather
> it tries all nodes that actually have a chance of having kmem_getpages()
> succeed which increases the probability that your patch actually has an
> effect for cpuset users.
cpuset users are unlikely to trigger memory hotadds from inside limiting
cpusets. Typically that's done from udev etc.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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