Re: [PATCH 04/10] Use percpu buffers

[Pekka Enberg]

 Hi Nitin,

On 10.8.2010 7.47, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 08/10/2010 12:27 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Nitin Gupta<ngupta@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > > @@ -303,38 +307,41 @@ static int zram_write(struct zram *zram, struct bio *bio)
> > >                                 zram_test_flag(zram, index, ZRAM_ZERO))
> > >                         zram_free_page(zram, index);
> > >
> > > -               mutex_lock(&zram->lock);
> > > +               preempt_disable();
> > > +               zbuffer = __get_cpu_var(compress_buffer);
> > > +               zworkmem = __get_cpu_var(compress_workmem);
> > > +               if (unlikely(!zbuffer || !zworkmem)) {
> > > +                       preempt_enable();
> > > +                       goto out;
> > > +               }
> > The per-CPU buffer thing with this preempt_disable() trickery looks
> > overkill to me. Most block device drivers seem to use mempool_alloc()
> > for this sort of thing. Is there some reason you can't use that here?
> Other block drivers are allocating relatively small structs using
> mempool_alloc(). However, in case of zram, these buffers are quite
> large (compress_workmem is 64K!). So, allocating them on every write
> would probably be much slower than using a pre-allocated per-cpu buffer.
The mempool API is precisely for that - using pre-allocated buffers 
instead of allocating every time. The preempt_disable() games make the 
code complex and have the downside of higher scheduling latencies so why 
not give mempools a try?

            Pekka
--
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/