[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140811121241.GD7970@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:12:42 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux-FSDevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm: page_alloc: Reduce cost of the fair zone
allocation policy
On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 05:27:15PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 07/09/2014 10:13 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -1604,6 +1604,9 @@ again:
> > }
> >
> > __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH, -(1 << order));
>
> This can underflow zero, right?
>
Yes, because of per-cpu accounting drift.
> > + if (zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH) == 0 &&
>
> AFAICS, zone_page_state will correct negative values to zero only for
> CONFIG_SMP. Won't this check be broken on !CONFIG_SMP?
>
On !CONFIG_SMP how can there be per-cpu accounting drift that would make
that counter negative?
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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