On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 07:41:53PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On 3/11/21 7:35 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > And I dislike this. It is yet another case of introducing consumer-specific > > logic into core. Isn't netepoch example enough? > > > > I presented another patch to Hans, where task and mm allocations are > > switched to zones, and the zones have reserve applied. Then allocations > > from ithreads use the reserve. > > > > There is one detail there, reserve is finite, for x86 I set it to the > > total limit of interrupts. This somewhat breaks if interrupts are > > deallocated and reallocated, but I think it is good enough even with > > this wart. > > Hi, > > Your patch doesn't address the issue of initializing the pointers in > question once. Still, for every call, we need to check if the pointer is > valid. This is not neccessary. I do not understand what you are saying there. Which pointers? How does it not address?
> > Also I don't see why we need to create a own UMA zone for these simple > structures. Won't the per-CPU sysctl consume more memory than the actual > task structures being allocated? Dedicated UMA zone allows to gracefully solve the requirement of non-failing allocation in non-sleepable context. This is much simpler and cleaner than either trying to enumerate all existing ithreads or adding consumer-specific controls into generic kernel facility. _______________________________________________ dev-commits-src-main@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/dev-commits-src-main To unsubscribe, send any mail to "dev-commits-src-main-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
