>
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:55:14 +0200
> > Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > A possible solution, would be use the local_bh_{disable,enable} instead
> > > of the {preempt_disable,enable} calls. But it is slower, using numbers
> > > from [1] (19 vs 11 cycles), thus the expected cycles saving is 38-19=19.
> > >
> > > The problematic part of using local_bh_enable is that this adds a
> > > softirq/bottom-halves rescheduling point (as it checks for pending
> > > BHs). Thus, this might affects real workloads.
> >
> > I implemented this solution in patch below... and tested it on mlx5 at
> > 50G with manually disabled driver-page-recycling. It works for me.
> >
> > To Mel, that do you prefer... a partial-revert or something like this?
> >
>
> If Tariq confirms it works for him as well, this looks far safer patch
> than having a dedicate IRQ-safe queue. Your concern about the BH
> scheduling point is valid but if it's proven to be a problem, there is
> still the option of a partial revert.
I also feel the same.
Thanks,
Pankaj
>
> --
> Mel Gorman
> 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>
