[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160526192154.GC23194@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:21:54 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Linux-MM layout <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Marco Grassi <marco.gra@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH percpu/for-4.7-fixes 1/2] percpu: fix synchronization
between chunk->map_extend_work and chunk destruction
Hello,
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:19:06AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > if (is_atomic) {
> > margin = 3;
> >
> > if (chunk->map_alloc <
> > - chunk->map_used + PCPU_ATOMIC_MAP_MARGIN_LOW &&
> > - pcpu_async_enabled)
> > - schedule_work(&chunk->map_extend_work);
> > + chunk->map_used + PCPU_ATOMIC_MAP_MARGIN_LOW) {
> > + if (list_empty(&chunk->map_extend_list)) {
> So why this list_empty condition? Doesn't it deserve a comment then? And
Because doing list_add() twice corrupts the list. I'm not sure that
deserves a comment. We can do list_move() instead but that isn't
necessarily better.
> isn't using a list an overkill in that case?
That would require rebalance work to scan all chunks whenever it's
scheduled and if a lot of atomic allocations are taking place, it has
some possibility to become expensive with a lot of chunks.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists