[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200818154502.GA32169@pc636>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:45:02 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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
Hello, Michal.
You mentioned somewhere in the thread to show figures regarding hitting
a fast path and "fallback one". We follow fallback when a page allocation fails.
Please see below the plot. I hope it is easy to understand:
wget ftp://vps418301.ovh.net/incoming/1000000_kfree_rcu_fast_hit_vs_fallback_hit.png
to summarize. When i tight loop is applied, i.e. flood simulation the fallback hit
is negligible. It is a noise, out of 1 000 000 we have 1% or %2 of fallback hitting.
Thanks!
--
Vlad Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists