[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ca5e3e13f00348898bb9205a7eeb4c85@h3c.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 14:33:13 +0000
From: Tianxianting <tian.xianting@....com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
CC: "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: avoid a unnecessary reschedule in
shrink_slab()
Thanks for the explain.
I got it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michal Hocko [mailto:mhocko@...e.com]
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 9:45 PM
To: tianxianting (RD) <tian.xianting@....com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org; linux-mm@...ck.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: vmscan: avoid a unnecessary reschedule in shrink_slab()
On Fri 16-10-20 13:20:41, Tianxianting wrote:
> Thanks
> I understood what you said :)
> But whether it is proper to check reschedule in every loop when lock is taken?
I do not see any actual problem TBH. cond_resched is mostly to increase interactivity for non preemptible kernel. It can reduce throughput but this is a memory reclaim path and I do not expect this to contribute to any moderate hot paths. Direct reclaim doesn't really count as a hot path.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists