[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130725151049.GM715@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:10:49 -0400
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: Paul Bolle <paul.bollee@...il.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] mm: page_alloc: fair zone allocator policy
Hi Paul Bolle^W^W Sam Ben^W^W Hush Bensen^W^W Mtrr Patt^W^W Ric
Mason^W^W Will Huck^W^W Simon Jeons^W^W Jaeguk Hanse^W^W Ni zhan
Chen^W^W^W Wanpeng Li
[ I Cc'd Paul Bolle at pebolle@...cali.nl as well, his English was
better from there ]
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 02:50:54PM +0800, Paul Bolle wrote:
> On 07/23/2013 04:21 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >On 07/19/2013 04:55 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> >
> >>@@ -1984,7 +1992,8 @@ this_zone_full:
> >> goto zonelist_scan;
> >> }
> >>
> >>- if (page)
> >>+ if (page) {
> >>+ atomic_sub(1U << order, &zone->alloc_batch);
> >> /*
> >> * page->pfmemalloc is set when ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS was
> >> * necessary to allocate the page. The expectation is
> >
> >Could this be moved into the slow path in buffered_rmqueue and
> >rmqueue_bulk, or would the effect of ignoring the pcp buffers be
> >too detrimental to keeping the balance between zones?
> >
> >It would be kind of nice to not have this atomic operation on every
> >page allocation...
>
> atomic operation will lock cache line or memory bus? And cmpxchg
> will lock cache line or memory bus? ;-)
Sure, why not ;-)
--
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