[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YenPK/JVNOhbxjtr@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:07:55 -0800
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v2] mm: don't call lru draining in the nested
lru_cache_disable
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 09:24:22AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 19-01-22 20:25:54, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:20:22AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > What does prevent you from calling lru_cache_{disable,enable} this way
> > > with the existing implementation? AFAICS calls can be nested just fine.
> > > Or am I missing something?
> >
> > It just increases more IPI calls since we drain the lru cache
> > both upper layer and lower layer. That's I'd like to avoid
> > in this patch. Just disable lru cache one time for entire
> > allocation path.
>
> I do not follow. Once you call lru_cache_disable at the higher level
> then no new pages are going to be added to the pcp caches. At the same
> time existing caches are flushed so the inner lru_cache_disable will not
> trigger any new IPIs.
lru_cache_disable calls __lru_add_drain_all with force_all_cpus
unconditionally so keep calling the IPI.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists