[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAmzW4NPv+mu5P9=jHf0XgcrPjbCKJZR1hQkUkPvcTHb-0q50g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:46:02 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, kernel-team@....com,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 for v5.9] mm/page_alloc: handle a missing case for
memalloc_nocma_{save/restore} APIs
2020년 9월 29일 (화) 오후 1:50, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>님이 작성:
>
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 10:28:05 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > > What about manually emptying the pcplists beforehand?
> >
> > It also increases the probability. schedule() or interrupt after emptying but
> > before the allocation could invalidate the effect.
>
> Keep local interrupts disabled across the pcp drain and the allocation
> attempt.
As said before, it's an allocation context API and actual allocation
happens later.
Doing such things there is not an easy job.
> > > Or byassing the pcplists for this caller and calling __rmqueue() directly?
> >
> > What this patch does is this one.
>
> I meant via a different function rather than by adding overhead to the
> existing commonly-used function.
Got it. One idea could be disabling/enabling pcp list on these APIs but
it's overhead would not be appropriate on these APIs. I don't have
another idea that doesn't touch the allocation path.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists