From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@google.com>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] mm: add the preempt check into alloc_vmap_area()
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 05:06:43 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180227130643.GA12781@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180227102259.4629-1-urezki@gmail.com>
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:22:59AM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> During finding a suitable hole in the vmap_area_list
> there is an explicit rescheduling check for latency reduction.
> We do it, since there are workloads which are sensitive for
> long (more than 1 millisecond) preemption off scenario.
I understand your problem, but this is a horrid solution. If it takes
us a millisecond to find a suitable chunk of free address space, something
is terribly wrong. On a 3GHz CPU, that's 3 million clock ticks!
I think our real problem is that we have no data structure that stores
free VA space. We have the vmap_area which stores allocated space, but no
data structure to store free space.
My initial proposal would be to reuse the vmap_area structure and store
the freed ones in a second rb_tree sorted by the size (ie va_end - va_start).
When freeing, we might need to merge forwards and backwards. Allocating
would be a matter of finding an area preferably of the exact right size;
otherwise split a larger free area into a free area and an allocated area
(there's a lot of literature on how exactly to choose which larger area
to split; memory allocators are pretty well-studied).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-27 13:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-27 10:22 [RFC v1] mm: add the preempt check into alloc_vmap_area() Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2018-02-27 13:06 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2018-02-28 12:40 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2018-03-02 23:34 ` Andrew Morton
2018-03-03 21:18 ` Uladzislau Rezki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180227130643.GA12781@bombadil.infradead.org \
--to=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thgarnie@google.com \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).