Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1354058
| Path | csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod |
|---|---|
| From | Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> |
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 02/27] mm, vmscan: Check if cpusets are enabled during direct reclaim |
| Date | Wed, 09 Mar 2016 13:00:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <raKWt-7pX-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <r5mL7-7at-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <r5mUQ-7eb-83@gated-at.bofh.it> <r8zLQ-6rX-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| X-Original-To | Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 |
| Content-Disposition | inline |
| User-Agent | Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
| Sender | robomod@news.nic.it |
| List-ID | <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org> |
| X-Mailing-List | linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org |
| Approved | robomod@news.nic.it |
| Lines | 49 |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
| X-Original-Cc | Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org |
| X-Original-Date | Wed, 9 Mar 2016 11:59:38 +0000 |
| X-Original-Message-ID | <20160309115909.GA31585@techsingularity.net> |
| X-Original-References | <1456239890-20737-1-git-send-email-mgorman@techsingularity.net> <1456239890-20737-3-git-send-email-mgorman@techsingularity.net> <56D8209C.5020103@suse.cz> |
| X-Original-Sender | linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org |
| Xref | csiph.com linux.kernel:1354058 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 12:31:40PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 02/23/2016 04:04 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Direct reclaim obeys cpusets but misses the cpusets_enabled() check.
> > The overhead is unlikely to be measurable in the direct reclaim
> > path which is expensive but there is no harm is doing it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
> > ---
> > mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 86eb21491867..de8d6226e026 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -2566,7 +2566,7 @@ static void shrink_zones(struct zonelist *zonelist, struct scan_control *sc)
> > * to global LRU.
> > */
> > if (global_reclaim(sc)) {
> > - if (!cpuset_zone_allowed(zone,
> > + if (cpusets_enabled() && !cpuset_zone_allowed(zone,
> > GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_HARDWALL))
> > continue;
>
> Hmm, wouldn't it be nicer if cpuset_zone_allowed() itself did the right
> thing, and not each caller?
>
> How about the patch below? (+CC)
>
The patch appears to be layer upon the entire series but that in itself
is ok. This part is a problem
> An important function for cpusets is cpuset_node_allowed(), which acknowledges
> that if there's a single root CPU set, it must be trivially allowed. But the
> check "nr_cpusets() <= 1" doesn't use the cpusets_enabled_key static key in a
> proper way where static keys can reduce the overhead.
There is one check for the static key and a second for the count to see
if it's likely a valid cpuset that matters has been configured. The
point of that check was that it was lighter than __cpuset_zone_allowed
in the case where no cpuset is configured.
The patches are not equivalent.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 02/27] mm, vmscan: Check if cpusets are enabled during direct reclaim Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-03-09 13:00 +0100 Re: [PATCH 02/27] mm, vmscan: Check if cpusets are enabled during direct reclaim Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> - 2016-03-09 13:40 +0100
csiph-web