[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210922112817.GO4323@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:28:17 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@...hat.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, frederic@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, cl@...ux.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
mingo@...hat.com, mtosatti@...hat.com, nilal@...hat.com,
mgorman@...e.de, ppandit@...hat.com, williams@...hat.com,
bigeasy@...utronix.de, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] mm: Remote LRU per-cpu pagevec cache/per-cpu page
list drain support
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 07:59:51PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> These days the pcplist protection is done by local_lock, which solved
> the RT concerns. Probably a stupid/infeasible idea, but maybe what you
> want to achieve could be more generally solved at the local_lock level?
> That on NOHZ_FULL CPUs, local_locks could have this mode where they
> could synchronize with remote cpus?
local_lock and spinlock have different rules, local_lock for example can
never cause an irq inversion, unlike a spinlock.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists