[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAeU0aPGvoYr=dtbRWT3=S5x9HmkUEiGmGWQy0JdFVu3F40N9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:12:11 -0800
From: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Roman Pen <r.peniaev@...il.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
zijun_hu <zijun_hu@....com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] percpu: improve allocation success rate for
non-GFP_KERNEL callers
>> Doing preallocations would probably work but not sure if that can be
>> done without
>> complicating code too much. Could you describe what you have in mind?
>
> So, blkg_create() already takes @new_blkg argument which is the
> preallocated blkg and used during q init. Wouldn't it work to make
> blkg_lookup_create() take @new_blkg too and pass it down to
> blkg_create() (and also free it if it doesn't get used)? Then,
> blkg_conf_prep() can always (or after a failure with -ENOMEM) allocate
> a new blkg before calling into blkg_lookup_create(). I don't think
> it'll complicate the code path that much.
That makes sense. I will work a patch that does that (unless you are
interested in implementing it yourself).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists