Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au> writes:
> > > >
> > > I can tell you that Irix has just such a global counter for the amount of
> > > delayed allocate pages - and it gets to be a major point of cache contention
> > > once you get to larger cpu counts. So avoiding that from the start would
> > > be good.
> >
> > Ah, good info. Thanks. I'll fix it with a big "FIXME" comment for now,
> > fix it for real when Rusty's per-CPU infrastructure appears.
>
> Just curious -- how do you want to fix it for real?
> As far as I can see a delalloc counter needs to be exact to avoid OOM
> deadlocks, but making it per CPU would require doing the accounting inexact.
The counter is used only for making writeback decisions. It is
completely analogous to nr_buffers_type[BUF_DIRTY], except it counts
pages. So it does not need to be exact for readers.
If we needed exact reader-accounting for the number of dirty pages in the
machine then we'd need a ton of new locking in fun places like __free_pte(),
and that still doesn't account for pages which are only pte-dirty, and it's
not obvious what we'd do with reader-exact dirty page info anyway?
-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:52 EST