[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aYYGvEkIwBiRR1Uh@tpad>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 12:20:28 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Introducing qpw_lock() and per-cpu queue & flush work
On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 11:34:31AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Some places in the kernel implement a parallel programming strategy
> consisting on local_locks() for most of the work, and some rare remote
> operations are scheduled on target cpu. This keeps cache bouncing low since
> cacheline tends to be mostly local, and avoids the cost of locks in non-RT
> kernels, even though the very few remote operations will be expensive due
> to scheduling overhead.
Forgot to mention: patchset is against Vlastimil's slab/next tree.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists