On Thu 20-01-22 13:07:55, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 09:24:22AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 19-01-22 20:25:54, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:20:22AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > What does prevent you from calling lru_cache_{disable,enable} this way
> > > > with the existing implementation? AFAICS calls can be nested just fine.
> > > > Or am I missing something?
> > >
> > > It just increases more IPI calls since we drain the lru cache
> > > both upper layer and lower layer. That's I'd like to avoid
> > > in this patch. Just disable lru cache one time for entire
> > > allocation path.
> >
> > I do not follow. Once you call lru_cache_disable at the higher level
> > then no new pages are going to be added to the pcp caches. At the same
> > time existing caches are flushed so the inner lru_cache_disable will not
> > trigger any new IPIs.
>
> lru_cache_disable calls __lru_add_drain_all with force_all_cpus
> unconditionally so keep calling the IPI.
OK, this is something I have missed. Why cannot we remove the force_all
mode for lru_disable_count>0 when there are no pcp caches populated?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
