On Tue 03-09-24 09:50:48, mawupeng wrote:
> > Drain remote PCP may be not that expensive now after commit 4b23a68f9536
> > ("mm/page_alloc: protect PCP lists with a spinlock"). No IPI is needed
> > to drain the remote PCP.
>
> This looks really great, we can think a way to drop pcp before goto slowpath
> before swap.
We currently drain after first unsuccessful direct reclaim run. Is that
insufficient? Should we do a less aggressive draining sooner? Ideally
restricted to cpus on the same NUMA node maybe? Do you have any specific
workloads that would benefit from this?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
