[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111227175249.GE17712@google.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:52:49 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, avi@...hat.com,
nate@...nel.net, cl@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com,
axboe@...nel.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET] block, mempool, percpu: implement percpu mempool
and fix blkcg percpu alloc deadlock
Hello, KAMEZAWA.
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 03:05:31PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> From 433b56fd5644d4b1e695bc16bbf8dd78842999fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:06:21 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] percpu_counter: add lazy init
>
> percpu_counter calls alloc_percpu(). This means percpu_counter_init()
> assumes GFP_KERNEL context. This may call vmalloc() in percpu_counter
> allocation and will have locks.
>
> If a caller doesn't want to assume GFP_KERNEL, we need some tricks.
> This patch adds percpu_counter_init_lazy().
>
> At lazy allocation, the function leaves fbc->counters as NULL and
> init fbc->counters by workqueue. This work item handling is done
> by fbc->list, so, the struct size of 'fbc' will not increase if
> a user configs CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU.
This is essentially more specialized form of the mempool approach. It
doesn't seem any simpler to me while being less generic. I don't see
what the upside would be.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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