[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170731083111.tgjgkwge5dgt5m2e@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:31:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/sched: memdelay: memory health interface for
systems and workloads
On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:28:13AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 11:10:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:30:10AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > +static void domain_cpu_update(struct memdelay_domain *md, int cpu,
> > > + int old, int new)
> > > +{
> > > + enum memdelay_domain_state state;
> > > + struct memdelay_domain_cpu *mdc;
> > > + unsigned long now, delta;
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > +
> > > + mdc = per_cpu_ptr(md->mdcs, cpu);
> > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&mdc->lock, flags);
> >
> > Afaict this is inside scheduler locks, this cannot be a spinlock. Also,
> > do we really want to add more atomics there?
>
> I think we should be able to get away without an additional lock and
> rely on the rq lock instead. schedule, enqueue, dequeue already hold
> it, memdelay_enter/leave could be added. I need to think about what to
> do with try_to_wake_up in order to get the cpu move accounting inside
> the locked section of ttwu_queue(), but that should be doable too.
So could you start by describing what actual statistics we need? Because
as is the scheduler already does a gazillion stats and why can't re
repurpose some of those?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists