From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: yangge1116@126.com
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
stable@vger.kernel.org, 21cnbao@gmail.com, david@redhat.com,
baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, aisheng.dong@nxp.com,
liuzixing@hygon.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/cma: add an API to enable/disable concurrent memory allocation for the CMA
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 15:04:12 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250127150412.875e666a728c3d7bde0726b0@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1737717687-16744-1-git-send-email-yangge1116@126.com>
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 19:21:27 +0800 yangge1116@126.com wrote:
> From: yangge <yangge1116@126.com>
>
> Commit 60a60e32cf91 ("Revert "mm/cma.c: remove redundant cma_mutex lock"")
> simply reverts to the original method of using the cma_mutex to ensure
> that alloc_contig_range() runs sequentially. This change was made to avoid
> concurrency allocation failures. However, it can negatively impact
> performance when concurrent allocation of CMA memory is required.
>
> To address this issue, we could introduce an API for concurrency settings,
> allowing users to decide whether their CMA can perform concurrent memory
> allocations or not.
The term "users" tends to refer to userspace code. Here I'm thinking
you mean in-kernel code, so a better term to use is "callers".
This new interface has no callers. We prefer not to merge unused code!
Please send along the patch which calls cma_set_concurrency() so we
can better understand this proposal and so that the new code is
testable. In fact the patch has cc:stable, which makes things
stranger. Why should the -stable maintainers merge a patch which
doesn't do anything?
And please quantify the benefit. "negatively impact" is too vague.
How much benefit can we expect our users to see from this? Some
runtime testing results would be good.
And please describe in more detail why this particular caller doesn't
require concurrency protection. And help other developers understand
when it is safe for them to use concurr_alloc==false.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-27 23:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-24 11:21 yangge1116
2025-01-27 23:04 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2025-02-08 8:19 ` Ge Yang
2025-01-28 6:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-01-28 9:58 ` Barry Song
2025-02-08 8:50 ` Ge Yang
2025-02-08 21:34 ` Barry Song
2025-02-09 10:49 ` Ge Yang
2025-02-10 8:28 ` David Hildenbrand
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=20250127150412.875e666a728c3d7bde0726b0@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=aisheng.dong@nxp.com \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liuzixing@hygon.cn \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yangge1116@126.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