Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] mm: make lru_add_drain_all() selective

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:19:58 -0400 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:35:12PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I don't know how lots-of-kmallocs compares with alloc_percpu()
> > performance-wise.
> 
> If this is actually performance sensitive,

I've always assumed that it isn't performance-sensitive. 
schedule_on_each_cpu() has to be slow as a dog.

Then again, why does this patchset exist?  It's a performance
optimisation so presumably someone cares.  But not enough to perform
actual measurements :(

> the logical thing to do
> would be pre-allocating per-cpu buffers instead of depending on
> dynamic allocation.  Do the invocations need to be stackable?

schedule_on_each_cpu() calls should if course happen concurrently, and
there's the question of whether we wish to permit async
schedule_on_each_cpu().  Leaving the calling CPU twiddling thumbs until
everyone has finished is pretty sad if the caller doesn't want that.

> > That being said, the `cpumask_var_t mask' which was added to
> > lru_add_drain_all() is unneeded - it's just a temporary storage which
> > can be eliminated by creating a schedule_on_each_cpu_cond() or whatever
> > which is passed a function pointer of type `bool (*call_needed)(int
> > cpu, void *data)'.
> 
> I'd really like to avoid that.  Decision callbacks tend to get abused
> quite often and it's rather sad to do that because cpumask cannot be
> prepared and passed around.  Can't it just preallocate all necessary
> resources?

I don't recall seeing such abuse.  It's a very common and powerful
tool, and not implementing it because some dummy may abuse it weakens
the API for all non-dummies.  That allocation is simply unneeded.
--
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/