[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1403146219.5189.4.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 04:50:19 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability
On Wed, 2014-06-18 at 19:13 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:42:00PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > I still think it's totally the wrong direction to pollute so
> > many fast paths with this obscure debugging check workaround
> > unconditionally.
>
> OOM prevention should count for something, I would hope.
>
> > cond_resched() is in EVERY sleeping lock and in EVERY memory allocation!
> > And these are really critical paths for many workloads.
> >
> > If you really wanted to do this I think you would first need
> > to define a cond_resched_i_am_not_fast() or somesuch.
> >
> > Or put it all behind some debugging ifdef.
>
> My first thought was to put it behind CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL, but everyone
> seems to be enabling that one.
Not everybody, SUSE doesn't even have it enabled in factory.
-Mike
--
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