Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Jan 2017 15:41:59 +0100 | From | Michal Hocko <> | Subject | Re: weird allocation pattern in alloc_ila_locks |
| |
On Mon 09-01-17 06:31:50, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:58 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > Also this seems to be an init code so I assume a modprobe would have to > > set a non-default policy to make use of it. Does anybody do that out > > there? > > This is not init code. Whole point of rhashtable is that the resizes > can happen anytime. > At boot time, most rhashtable would be tiny. > Then, when load permits, hashtables grow in size.
OK, we are mixing two things here. I was talking about alloc_ila_locks which is an init code AFAIU.
If you are talking about alloc_bucket_locks then I would argue that the current code doesn't work as expected as the rehash happens from a kernel worker context and so the numa policy is out of control.
I will reply to this email with the patches I have pending here and plan to post just to make sure we are at the same page.
-- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
| |