Re: [patch 3/3] mm: page_alloc: fair zone allocator policy

[Paul Bolle]

On 07/23/2013 04:21 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 04:55 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> > @@ -1984,7 +1992,8 @@ this_zone_full:
> >           goto zonelist_scan;
> >       }
> >
> > -    if (page)
> > +    if (page) {
> > +        atomic_sub(1U << order, &zone->alloc_batch);
> >           /*
> >            * page->pfmemalloc is set when ALLOC_NO_WATERMARKS was
> >            * necessary to allocate the page. The expectation is
>
> Could this be moved into the slow path in buffered_rmqueue and
> rmqueue_bulk, or would the effect of ignoring the pcp buffers be
> too detrimental to keeping the balance between zones?
>
> It would be kind of nice to not have this atomic operation on every
> page allocation...

atomic operation will lock cache line or memory bus? And cmpxchg will 
lock cache line or memory bus? ;-)

> As a side benefit, higher-order buffered_rmqueue and rmqueue_bulk
> both happen under the zone->lock, so moving this accounting down
> to that layer might allow you to get rid of the atomics alltogether.
>
> I like the overall approach though. This is something Linux has needed
> for a long time, and could be extremely useful to automatic NUMA
> balancing as well...

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/