[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YGwnPCPaq1xKh/88@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 11:17:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
HORIGUCHI NAOYA <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] mm/cma: change cma mutex to irq safe spinlock
On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 04:00:36PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> The lock doesn't protect any sleepable operation so it can be changed to
> a (irq aware) spin lock. The bitmap processing should be quite fast in
> typical case but if cma sizes grow to TB then we will likely need to
> replace the lock by a more optimized bitmap implementation.
Or an rb-tree that stores ranges, which should also be much cheaper
storage wise, for those sizes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists