On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 05:31:29PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > All good points! > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, duplicating a portion of the allocator functionality > > > > > within RCU increases the amount of reserved memory, and needlessly most > > > > > of the time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But it's very similar to what mempools are for. > > > > > > > As for dynamic caching or mempools. It requires extra logic on top of RCU > > > to move things forward and it might be not efficient way. As a side > > > effect, maintaining of the bulk arrays in the separate worker thread > > > will introduce other drawbacks: > > > > This is true but it is also true that it is RCU to require this special > > logic and we can expect that we might need to fine tune this logic > > depending on the RCU usage. We definitely do not want to tune the > > generic page allocator for a very specific usecase, do we? > > > I look at it in scope of GFP_ATOMIC/GFP_NOWAIT issues, i.e. inability > to provide a memory service for contexts which are not allowed to > sleep, RCU is part of them. Both flags used to provide such ability > before but not anymore. > > Do you agree with it? > I was led to believe that hte problem was taking the zone lock while holding a raw spinlock that was specific to RCU. Are you saying that GFP_ATOMIC/GFP_NOWAIT users are also holding raw spinlocks at the same time on RT? -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
