On Wed, 16 May 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > So its no use on NUMA? > > It is, its just that we're swapping very heavily at that point, a > bouncing cache-line will not significantly slow down the box compared to > waiting for block IO, will it?
How does all of this interact with 1. cpusets 2. dma allocations and highmem? 3. Containers? > > The problem here is that you may spinlock and take out the slab for one > > cpu but then (AFAICT) other cpus can still not get their high priority > > allocs satisfied. Some comments follow. > > All cpus are redirected to ->reserve_slab when the regular allocations > start to fail. And the reserve slab is refilled from page allocator reserves if needed? > > But this is only working if we are using the slab after > > explicitly flushing the cpuslabs. Otherwise the slab may be full and we > > get to alloc_slab. > > /me fails to parse. s->cpu[cpu] is only NULL if the cpu slab was flushed. This is a pretty rare case likely not worth checking. > > Remove the above two lines (they are wrong regardless) and simply make > > this the cpu slab. > > It need not be the same node; the reserve_slab is node agnostic. > So here the free page watermarks are good again, and we can forget all > about the ->reserve_slab. We just push it on the free/partial lists and > forget about it. > > But like you said above: unfreeze_slab() should be good, since I don't > use the lockless_freelist. You could completely bypass the regular allocation functions and do object = s->reserve_slab->freelist; s->reserve_slab->freelist = object[s->reserve_slab->offset]; - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
