[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210729143735.wuql2keewd444nvq@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:37:35 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, 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>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 00/34] SLUB: reduce irq disabled scope and make it RT
compatible
On 2021-07-29 16:17:26 [+0200], Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> I forgot to point that out in the cover letter, but with v3 this change to
> raw_spinlock_t is AFAICS no longer possible (at least with
> CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL) because in put_cpu_partial() we now take the local_lock
> and it can be called from get_partial_node() which takes the list_lock.
I saw increased latency numbers with CONFIG_SLUB_CPU_PARTIAL before it
got disabled for other reasons so I'm not too sad if it remains
disabled.
> Hm but SLUB should never call the page allocator from under list_lock in my series?
oh yes. I run into CPU_PARTIAL instead. Sorry for the confusion. So
without PARTIAL it says "24,643 CPUs utilized" and no warnings :)
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists