[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cadede43-776e-449d-c6e5-c7f9c2c1acf2@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 09:00:41 +0800
From: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, <dsterba@...e.cz>,
<bhelgaas@...gle.com>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Alexander Duyck" <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
<sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] async: Let kfree() out of the critical area of the lock
On 2019/9/26 23:18, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 9/26/19 4:06 AM, David Sterba wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 03:58:36PM +0800, Yunfeng Ye wrote:
>>> The async_lock is big global lock, I think it's good to put kfree() outside
>>> to keep the critical area as short as possible.
>>
>> Agreed, kfree is not always cheap. We had patches in btrfs moving kfree
>> out of critical section(s) after causing softlockups due to increased lock
>> contention.
>
> The above would be a great addition for the commit description. Anyway:
>
ok, I will update the description, thanks.
> Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists