On 2017/4/10 23:10, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:31:48PM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
>> Hi, Mel
>>
>> The patch I had test on arm64. I find the great degradation. I test it
>> by micro-bench.
>> The patrly data is as following. and it is stable. That stands for the
>> a
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:31:48PM +0800, zhong jiang wrote:
> Hi, Mel
>
> The patch I had test on arm64. I find the great degradation. I test it
> by micro-bench.
> The patrly data is as following. and it is stable. That stands for the
> allocate and free time.
>
What type of
On 2017/3/1 21:48, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> Hi NetDev community,
>
> I just wanted to make net driver people aware that this MM commit[1] got
> merged and is available in net-next.
>
> commit 374ad05ab64d ("mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu allocator for
> irq-safe requests")
> [1] https:/
On 28/03/2017 9:24 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:05:12 +0300
Tariq Toukan wrote:
On 28/03/2017 10:32 AM, Tariq Toukan wrote:
On 27/03/2017 4:32 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:05:12 +0300
Tariq Toukan wrote:
> On 28/03/2017 10:32 AM, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 27/03/2017 4:32 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:55:14 +0200
> >>> Jesper Dangaard
On 28/03/2017 10:32 AM, Tariq Toukan wrote:
On 27/03/2017 4:32 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:55:14 +0200
Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
A possible solution, would be use the local_bh_{disable,enable} in
>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:55:14 +0200
> > Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >
> > > A possible solution, would be use the local_bh_{disable,enable} instead
> > > of the {preempt_disable,enable} calls. But it is slower,
On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:32:19 +0300
Tariq Toukan wrote:
> On 27/03/2017 4:32 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:55:14 +0200
> >> Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >>
> >>> A possible solution, would be us
On 27/03/2017 4:32 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:55:14 +0200
Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
A possible solution, would be use the local_bh_{disable,enable} instead
of the {preempt_disable,enable} calls. B
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 07:15:18 -0700
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >
> > +static __always_inline int in_irq_or_nmi(void)
> > +{
> > + return in_irq() || in_nmi();
> > +// XXX: hoping compiler will optimize this (todo verify) in
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> +static __always_inline int in_irq_or_nmi(void)
> +{
> + return in_irq() || in_nmi();
> +// XXX: hoping compiler will optimize this (todo verify) into:
> +// #define in_irq_or_nmi() (preempt_count() & (HARDIRQ_MASK
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:55:14 +0200
> Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> > A possible solution, would be use the local_bh_{disable,enable} instead
> > of the {preempt_disable,enable} calls. But it is slower, using numbers
>
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:55:14 +0200
Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> A possible solution, would be use the local_bh_{disable,enable} instead
> of the {preempt_disable,enable} calls. But it is slower, using numbers
> from [1] (19 vs 11 cycles), thus the expected cycles saving is 38-19=19.
>
> The
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:55:14AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 03:32:47 -0400 (EDT)
> Pankaj Gupta wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > It looks like a race with softirq and normal process context.
> >
> > Just thinking if we really want allocations from 'softirqs' to be
>
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 03:32:47 -0400 (EDT)
Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It looks like a race with softirq and normal process context.
>
> Just thinking if we really want allocations from 'softirqs' to be
> done using per cpu list?
Yes, softirq need fast page allocs. The softirq use-case is
Hello,
It looks like a race with softirq and normal process context.
Just thinking if we really want allocations from 'softirqs' to be done using
per cpu list? Or we can have some check in 'free_hot_cold_page' for softirqs
to check if we are on a path of returning from hard interrupt don't al
On 26/03/2017 11:21 AM, Tariq Toukan wrote:
On 23/03/2017 4:51 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 02:43:47PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:40:04 +
Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 07:39:17PM +0200, Tariq Toukan wrote:
This modificati
On 23/03/2017 4:51 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 02:43:47PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:40:04 +
Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 07:39:17PM +0200, Tariq Toukan wrote:
This modification may slow allocations from IRQ context slight
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 02:43:47PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:40:04 +
> Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 07:39:17PM +0200, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> > > > > > This modification may slow allocations from IRQ context slightly
> > > > > > but the
> >
On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 23:40:04 +
Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 07:39:17PM +0200, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> > > > > This modification may slow allocations from IRQ context slightly
> > > > > but the
> > > > > main gain from the per-cpu allocator is that it scales better for
> > > > > a
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 07:39:17PM +0200, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> > > > This modification may slow allocations from IRQ context slightly
> > > > but the
> > > > main gain from the per-cpu allocator is that it scales better for
> > > > allocations from multiple contexts. There is an implicit
> > > >
On 01/03/2017 7:36 PM, Tariq Toukan wrote:
On 01/03/2017 3:48 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
Hi NetDev community,
I just wanted to make net driver people aware that this MM commit[1] got
merged and is available in net-next.
commit 374ad05ab64d ("mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu allocat
On 01/03/2017 3:48 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
Hi NetDev community,
I just wanted to make net driver people aware that this MM commit[1] got
merged and is available in net-next.
commit 374ad05ab64d ("mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu allocator for irq-safe
requests")
[1] https://git.
Hi NetDev community,
I just wanted to make net driver people aware that this MM commit[1] got
merged and is available in net-next.
commit 374ad05ab64d ("mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu allocator for irq-safe
requests")
[1] https://git.kernel.org/davem/net-next/c/374ad05ab64d696
It provides
24 matches
Mail list logo
