[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez0mXxqLdSse6OpAMLNxSMc7nNor8PXk=kagPppGAXAXgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 18:00:23 +0200
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 11/26] mm, slub: move disabling irqs closer to get_partial()
in ___slab_alloc()
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 1:40 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
> Continue reducing the irq disabled scope. Check for per-cpu partial slabs with
> first with irqs enabled and then recheck with irqs disabled before grabbing
> the slab page. Mostly preparatory for the following patches.
[...]
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
[...]
> if (slub_percpu_partial(c)) {
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> + if (unlikely(c->page)) {
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> + goto reread_page;
> + }
> + if (unlikely(!slub_percpu_partial(c))) /* stolen by IRQ? */
> + goto new_objects;
nit: I think this comment is wrong by the end of the patch series,
since at that point, in RT configurations, it could also be stolen by
another task, if I understand correctly what migrate_disable() means?
Similarly the comment above ___slab_alloc() still talks about
disabling preemption for bulk allocation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists