Re: [rfc] lru_add_drain_all() vs isolation

[Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>]

On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 11:22 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > There is _no_ functional difference between before and after, except
> > less wakeups on cpus that don't have any __lru_cache_add activity.
> >
> > If there's pages on the per cpu lru_add_pvecs list it will be present in
> > the mask and will be send a drain request. If its not, then it won't be
> > send.
> 
> Ok I see.
> 
> A global cpu mask like this will cause cacheline bouncing. After all this
> is a hot cpu path. Maybe do not set the bit if its already set
> (which may be very frequent)? Then add some benchmarks to show that it
> does not cause a regression on a 16p box (Nehalem) or so?

Yeah, testing the bit before poking at is sounds like a good plan.

Unless someone feels inclined to finish this and audit the kernel for
more such places, I'll stick it on the ever growing todo pile.