Re: [rfc] lru_add_drain_all() vs isolation

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 09/07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 15:35 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Failed to google the previous discussion. Could you please point me?
> > What is the problem?
>
> Ah, the general problem is that when we carve up the machine into
> partitions using cpusets, we still get machine wide tickles on all cpus
> from workqueue stuff like schedule_on_each_cpu() and flush_workqueue(),
> even if some cpus don't actually used their workqueue.
>
> So the below limits lru_add_drain() activity to cpus that actually have
> pages in their per-cpu lists.

Thanks Peter!

> flush_workqueue() could limit itself to cpus that had work queued since
> the last flush_workqueue() invocation, etc.

But "work queued since the last flush_workqueue() invocation" just means
"has work queued". Please note that flush_cpu_workqueue() does nothing
if there are no works, except it does lock/unlock of cwq->lock.

IIRC, flush_cpu_workqueue() has to lock/unlock to avoid the races with
CPU hotplug, but _perhaps_ flush_workqueue() can do the check lockless.

Afaics, we can add the workqueue_struct->cpu_map_has_works to help
flush_workqueue(), but this means we should complicate insert_work()
and run_workqueue() which should set/clear the bit. But given that
flush_workqueue() should be avoided anyway, I am not sure.

Oleg.

--
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>