Re: [PATCHSET] block, mempool, percpu: implement percpu mempooland fix blkcg percpu alloc deadlock

From: Tejun Heo
Date: Tue Dec 27 2011 - 12:53:03 EST


On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 03:05:31PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> From 433b56fd5644d4b1e695bc16bbf8dd78842999fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:06:21 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] percpu_counter: add lazy init
> percpu_counter calls alloc_percpu(). This means percpu_counter_init()
> assumes GFP_KERNEL context. This may call vmalloc() in percpu_counter
> allocation and will have locks.
> If a caller doesn't want to assume GFP_KERNEL, we need some tricks.
> This patch adds percpu_counter_init_lazy().
> At lazy allocation, the function leaves fbc->counters as NULL and
> init fbc->counters by workqueue. This work item handling is done
> by fbc->list, so, the struct size of 'fbc' will not increase if
> a user configs CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU.

This is essentially more specialized form of the mempool approach. It
doesn't seem any simpler to me while being less generic. I don't see
what the upside would be.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at