Re: [PATCHSET] block, mempool, percpu: implement percpu mempool andfix blkcg percpu alloc deadlock
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
Date: Tue Dec 27 2011 - 19:15:19 EST
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:52:49 -0800
Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello, KAMEZAWA.
> 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.
Hm, but this never causes -ENOMEM error, at all.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/