lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHSET] block, mempool, percpu: implement percpu mempool and fix blkcg percpu alloc deadlock
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:09:11 -0800
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 01:59:25PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > How about we just delete those statistics and then this patchset?
> >
> > Or how about we change those statistics to not do percpu allocations,
> > then delete this patchset?
>
> I'm not against above both

Don't just consider my suggestions - please try to come up with your own
alternatives too! If all else fails then this patch is a last resort.

> but apparently those percpu stats reduced
> CPU overhead significantly.

Deleting them would save even more CPU.

Or make them runtime or compile-time configurable, so only the
developers see the impact.

Some specifics on which counters are causing the problems would help here.

> > Or how about we fix the percpu memory allocation code so that it
> > propagates the gfp flags, then delete this patchset?
>
> Oh, no, this is gonna make things *way* more complex. I tried.

But there's a difference between fixing a problem and working around it.

> If
> we're gonna have many more NOIO percpu users, which I don't think we
> would or should, that might make sense but, for fringe cases,
> extending mempool to cover percpu is a much better sized solution.

I've long felt that we goofed with the gfp_flags thing and that it
should be a field in the task_struct. Now *that* would be a large
patch!




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-22 23:23    [W:0.064 / U:0.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site