lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH percpu/for-4.7-fixes 1/2] percpu: fix synchronization between chunk->map_extend_work and chunk destruction
Hello,

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:19:06AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > if (is_atomic) {
> > margin = 3;
> >
> > if (chunk->map_alloc <
> > - chunk->map_used + PCPU_ATOMIC_MAP_MARGIN_LOW &&
> > - pcpu_async_enabled)
> > - schedule_work(&chunk->map_extend_work);
> > + chunk->map_used + PCPU_ATOMIC_MAP_MARGIN_LOW) {
> > + if (list_empty(&chunk->map_extend_list)) {

> So why this list_empty condition? Doesn't it deserve a comment then? And

Because doing list_add() twice corrupts the list. I'm not sure that
deserves a comment. We can do list_move() instead but that isn't
necessarily better.

> isn't using a list an overkill in that case?

That would require rebalance work to scan all chunks whenever it's
scheduled and if a lot of atomic allocations are taking place, it has
some possibility to become expensive with a lot of chunks.

Thanks.

--
tejun

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-26 21:41    [W:0.068 / U:22.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site