[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120209235845.GH19392@google.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:58:45 -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, guys.
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 05:28:42PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 04:41:02PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 09:14:02AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Hm, but this never causes -ENOMEM error, at all.
> >
> > Ooh, I missed the part it falls back to the global counter if percpu
> > counters aren't allocated yet. Yeah, this is an interesting approach.
> > I'll think more about it.
>
> I've been staring at the blkcg stats code and commit logs and am
> wondering whether we can just scrap percpu counters there. It seems
> the reason why it was introduced in the first place is to avoid
> stats->lock, which BTW is extremely heavy handed for gathering stats,
> overhead in fast paths and I think there can be easier ways to avoid
> stats->lock.
I could remove stats_lock without much trouble but couldn't get
blk-throtl fast path stat working. :(
I think I'll try to get KAMEZAWA's percpu counter working. Any
objections?
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