[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170123230429.os7ssxab4mazrkrb@techsingularity.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:04:29 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm, page_alloc: Drain per-cpu pages from workqueue
context
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 03:55:01PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Mel.
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 08:04:12PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > What is the actual mechanism that does that? It's not something that
> > schedule_on_each_cpu does and one would expect that the core workqueue
> > implementation would get this sort of detail correct. Or is this a proposal
> > on how it should be done?
>
> If you use schedule_on_each_cpu(), it's all fine as the thing pins
> cpus and waits for all the work items synchronously. If you wanna do
> it asynchronously, right now, you'll have to manually synchronize work
> items against the offline callback manually.
>
Is the current implementation and what it does wrong in some way? I ask
because synchronising against the offline callback sounds like it would
be a bit of a maintenance mess for relatively little gain.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists