Re: [PATCH] mm: vmalloc: Use the vmap_area_lock to protect ne_fit_preload_node

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 06:56:11PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 06:34:43PM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > I supppose, one thing which would help in this discussion, is what do
> > you gain by using preempt_disable() instead of moving the lock up?
> > Do you have performance numbers which could justify the code?
> >
> Actually there is a high lock contention on vmap_area_lock, because it
> is still global. You can have a look at last slide:
> 
> https://linuxplumbersconf.org/event/4/contributions/547/attachments/287/479/Reworking_of_KVA_allocator_in_Linux_kernel.pdf
> 
> so this change will make it a bit higher.

Thanks! I suspected something like this :(

On the todo-list page you stating that vmap_area_lock could be
splitted and therefore reduce the contention. If you could avoid those
preempt_disable() tricks and just use plain spin_locks() to protect it
would be really helpful.

> From the other hand i agree
> that for rt it should be fixed, probably it could be done like:
> 
> ifdef PREEMPT_RT
>     migrate_disable()
> #else
>     preempt_disable()
> ...
> 
> but i am not sure it is good either.

I don't think this way to go. I guess Sebastian and Thomas have a
better idea how to address this for PREEMPT_RT.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux