[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140529130544.56213f048f331723329ff828@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 13:05:44 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei.yes@...il.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Richard Yao <ryao@...too.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vmalloc: use rcu list iterator to reduce vmap_area_lock
contention
On Thu, 29 May 2014 15:22:34 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com> wrote:
> Richard Yao reported a month ago that his system have a trouble
> with vmap_area_lock contention during performance analysis
> by /proc/meminfo. Andrew asked why his analysis checks /proc/meminfo
> stressfully, but he didn't answer it.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/10/416
>
> Although I'm not sure that this is right usage or not, there is a solution
> reducing vmap_area_lock contention with no side-effect. That is just
> to use rcu list iterator in get_vmalloc_info(). This function only needs
> values on vmap_area structure, so we don't need to grab a spinlock.
The mixture of rcu protection and spinlock protection for
vmap_area_list is pretty confusing. Are you able to describe the
overall design here? When and why do we use one versus the other?
--
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