On Wed 18-01-17 10:48:55, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 01/18/2017 10:40 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 17-01-17 23:16:09, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > This is a preparation for the following patch to make review simpler. While
> > > the primary motivation is a bug fix, this could also save some cycles in the
> > > fast path.
> >
> > I cannot say I would be happy about this patch :/ The code is still very
> > confusing and subtle. I really think we should get rid of
> > synchronization with the concurrent cpuset/mempolicy updates instead.
> > Have you considered that instead?
>
> Not so thoroughly yet, but I already suspect it would be intrusive for
> stable. We could make copies of nodemask and mems_allowed and protect just
> the copying with seqcount, but that would mean overhead and stack space.
> Also we might try revert 682a3385e773 ("mm, page_alloc: inline the fast path
> of the zonelist iterator") ...
If reverting that patch makes the problem go away and it is applicable
for the stable I would rather go that way for stable and take a deep
breath and rethink the whole cpuset and nodemask manipulation in the
allocation path for a better long term solution.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>