lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Raw spinlocks and memory allocation
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:12:05 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:

> So, may we add a GFP_ flag that will cause kmalloc() and friends to return
> NULL when they would otherwise need to acquire their non-raw spinlock?
> This avoids adding any overhead to the slab-allocator fastpaths, but
> allows callback invocation to reduce cache misses without having to
> restructure some existing callers of call_rcu() and potential future
> callers of kfree_rcu().

We have eight free gfp_t bits so that isn't a problem.

Adding a test-n-branch to the kmalloc() fastpath may well be a concern.

Which of mm/sl?b.c are affected?

A doesnt-need-to-really-work protopatch would help us understand the
potential cost?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-31 22:39    [W:0.053 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site