[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1330723529.11248.237.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 22:25:29 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuset: mm: Remove memory barrier damage from the page
allocator
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 17:43 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> I considered using a seqlock but it isn't cheap. The read side is heavy
> with the possibility that it starts spinning and incurs a read barrier
> (looking at read_seqbegin()) here. The retry block incurs another read
> barrier so basically it would not be no better than what is there currently
> (which at a 4% performance hit, sucks)
Use seqcount.
Also, for the write side it doesn't really matter, changing mems_allowed
should be rare and is an 'expensive' operation anyway.
For the read side you can do:
again:
seq = read_seqcount_begin(¤t->mems_seq);
page = do_your_allocator_muck();
if (!page && read_seqcount_retry(¤t->mems_seq, seq))
goto again;
oom();
That way, you only have one smp_rmb() in your fath path,
read_seqcount_begin() doesn't spin, and you only incur the second
smp_rmb() when you've completely failed to allocate anything.
smp_rmb() is basicaly free on x86, other archs will incur some overhead,
but you need a barrier as Christoph pointed out.
--
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