Re: Page allocator order-0 optimizations merged

[Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@gmail.com>]

On 27/03/2017 4:32 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:55:14 +0200
>> Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A possible solution, would be use the local_bh_{disable,enable} instead
>>> of the {preempt_disable,enable} calls.  But it is slower, using numbers
>>> from [1] (19 vs 11 cycles), thus the expected cycles saving is 38-19=19.
>>>
>>> The problematic part of using local_bh_enable is that this adds a
>>> softirq/bottom-halves rescheduling point (as it checks for pending
>>> BHs).  Thus, this might affects real workloads.
>>
>> I implemented this solution in patch below... and tested it on mlx5 at
>> 50G with manually disabled driver-page-recycling.  It works for me.
>>
>> To Mel, that do you prefer... a partial-revert or something like this?
>>
>
> If Tariq confirms it works for him as well, this looks far safer patch

Great.
I will test Jesper's patch today in the afternoon.

> than having a dedicate IRQ-safe queue. Your concern about the BH
> scheduling point is valid but if it's proven to be a problem, there is
> still the option of a partial revert.
>

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>