[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130814130526.GA28628@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:05:26 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] mm: make lru_add_drain_all() selective
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 11:46:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> What does "nest" mean? lru_add_drain_all() calls itself recursively,
> presumably via some ghastly alloc_percpu()->alloc_pages(GFP_KERNEL)
> route? If that ever happens then we'd certainly want to know about it.
> Hopefully PF_MEMALLOC would prevent infinite recursion.
>
> If "nest" means something else then please enlighten me!
>
> As for "doing it simultaneously", I assume we're referring to
> concurrent execution from separate threads. If so, why would that "buy
> us anything"? Confused. As long as each thread sees "all pages which
> were in pagevecs at the time I called lru_add_drain_all() get spilled
> onto the LRU" then we're good. afaict the implementation will do this.
I was wondering whether we can avoid all allocations by just
pre-allocating all resources. If it can't call itself if we get rid
of all allocations && running multiple instances of them doesn't buy
us anything, the best solution would be allocating work items
statically and synchronize their use using a mutex. That way the
whole thing wouldn't need any allocation.
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