lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] scheduler fixes
    On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 03:06:40PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
    > On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 09:38 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 09:39:08PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
    > > > Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > > > >And vfs_caches_init_early() is actually doing some rather strange things,
    > > > >like doing a "alloc_large_system_hash()" but not unconditionally: it does
    > > > >it in the "late" initialization too, if not done early. inode_init_early
    > > > >does soemthing very similar (ie a _conditional_ early init).
    > > > >
    > > > >So none of this seems to really get a huge advantage from the early init.
    > > > >There seems to be some subtle NUMA issues, but do we really want that? I
    > > > >get the feeling that nobody ever wanted to do it early, and then the NUMA
    > > > >people said "I don't wnt to do this early, but I don't want to touch the
    > > > >non-NUMA case, so I'll do it early for non-numa, and late for numa".
    > > >
    > > > SLUB does sysfs setup in kmem_cache_init() and if I saw some oopses if I
    > > > don't call vfs_caches_init_early() first. I didn't look too closely, though.
    > >
    > > Did you also test the NUMA/hashdist case? vfs_caches_init_early doesn't
    > > do much in that case.
    >
    > No, I tested UMA only.
    >
    > On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 09:38 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > > I would say it is much more robust to do sysfs setup later if we move
    > > the slab setup so early. Probably it is just quite lucky not to explode
    > > in the !numa case because the vfs needs quite a bit of setting up...
    >
    > That should not be an issue. SLUB already defers sysfs registration
    > until slab_sysfs_init() initcall has been run. So my patches have zero
    > change in how SLUB interracts with sysfs, actually.

    Oh right, I didn't actually look. An initcall should be fine, but
    I wonder why it is crashing if you move it before vfs_caches_init_early?
    Those just allocate inode and dentry hash tables...



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-28 14:15    [W:4.380 / U:1.300 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site