[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200815084250.GN3982@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 10:42:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: paulmck@...nel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 1/2] mm: Add __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag
On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 01:14:53AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> #1 trivial fix is to force switching to an high prio thread or a soft
> interrupt which does the allocation
Yeah, push the alocation out to another context. I did consider it, but
why bother?
Also, raising a softirq can't be done from every context, that's a whole
new problem. You can do irq_work I suppose, but not all architectures
support the self-IPI yet.
All in all, it's just more complexity than the fairly trivial
__alloc_page_lockless().
Whichever way around, we can't rely on the allocation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists