[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702081419500.3536@nanos>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:23:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: mm: deadlock between get_online_cpus/pcpu_alloc
On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Mel Gorman wrote:
> It may be worth noting that patches in Andrew's tree no longer disable
> interrupts in the per-cpu allocator and now per-cpu draining will
> be from workqueue context. The reasoning was due to the overhead of
> the page allocator with figures included. Interrupts will bypass the
> per-cpu allocator and use the irq-safe zone->lock to allocate from
> the core. It'll collide with the RT patch. Primary patch of interest is
> http://www.ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/mm-page_alloc-only-use-per-cpu-allocator-for-irq-safe-requests.patch
Yeah, we'll sort that out once it hits Linus tree and we move RT forward.
Though I have once complaint right away:
+ preempt_enable_no_resched();
This is a nono, even in mainline. You effectively disable a preemption
point.
> The draining from workqueue context may be a problem for RT but one
> option would be to move the drain to only drain for high-order pages
> after direct reclaim combined with only draining for order-0 if
> __alloc_pages_may_oom is about to be called.
Why would the draining from workqueue context be an issue on RT?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists