lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] rcu/tree: Refactor object allocation and try harder for array allocation
> 
> I think Johannes said that waking up kswapd is Ok. OTOH, I did not see
> the drawback in waking up kswapd to do background reclaim since it
> does not happen synchronously right? I think Johannes said we can do
> better than just waking kswapd by also doing light direct reclaim
> using __GFP_NORETRY but let me know if I missed something.
>
Then i misunderstood that point. So, seems it is settled now. We just
use GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_RECLAIM | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN for headless
case, i.e. when we can sleep. It will do direct reclaim(slow path), but
light one because of __GFP_NORETRY.

Does it sound good?

> > For single argument we inline freeing into current context after
> > synchronize_rcu() because it follows might_sleep() annotation.
>
> Yes.
>
> Also, with the additional caching being planned, we could avoid the
> chances of hitting the synchronize_rcu inlining.
>
Or minimize it.

There is also one question i would like to clarify. That is dynamic head
attaching that requires small allocations. Do we drop it?

Thanks!

--
Vlad Rezki

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-24 14:29    [W:0.075 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site