Skip to content

cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel

openanolis / cloud-kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 161
Star 36
Fork 7
cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 10 9月, 2018 1 次提交
  3. 03 7月, 2018 1 次提交
    • T
      locking: Implement an algorithm choice for Wound-Wait mutexes · 08295b3b
      由 Thomas Hellstrom 提交于 
      The current Wound-Wait mutex algorithm is actually not Wound-Wait but
Wait-Die. Implement also Wound-Wait as a per-ww-class choice. Wound-Wait
is, contrary to Wait-Die a preemptive algorithm and is known to generate
fewer backoffs. Testing reveals that this is true if the
number of simultaneous contending transactions is small.
As the number of simultaneous contending threads increases, Wait-Wound
becomes inferior to Wait-Die in terms of elapsed time.
Possibly due to the larger number of held locks of sleeping transactions.

Update documentation and callers.

Timings using git://people.freedesktop.org/~thomash/ww_mutex_test
tag patch-18-06-15

Each thread runs 100000 batches of lock / unlock 800 ww mutexes randomly
chosen out of 100000. Four core Intel x86_64:

Algorithm    #threads       Rollbacks  time
Wound-Wait   4              ~100       ~17s.
Wait-Die     4              ~150000    ~19s.
Wound-Wait   16             ~360000    ~109s.
Wait-Die     16             ~450000    ~82s.

Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
Co-authored-by: NPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: NThomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
Acked-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      08295b3b
  5. 14 9月, 2017 1 次提交
    • M
      mm: treewide: remove GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag · 0ee931c4
      由 Michal Hocko 提交于 
      GFP_TEMPORARY was introduced by commit e12ba74d ("Group short-lived
and reclaimable kernel allocations") along with __GFP_RECLAIMABLE.  It's
primary motivation was to allow users to tell that an allocation is
short lived and so the allocator can try to place such allocations close
together and prevent long term fragmentation.  As much as this sounds
like a reasonable semantic it becomes much less clear when to use the
highlevel GFP_TEMPORARY allocation flag.  How long is temporary? Can the
context holding that memory sleep? Can it take locks? It seems there is
no good answer for those questions.

The current implementation of GFP_TEMPORARY is basically GFP_KERNEL |
__GFP_RECLAIMABLE which in itself is tricky because basically none of
the existing caller provide a way to reclaim the allocated memory.  So
this is rather misleading and hard to evaluate for any benefits.

I have checked some random users and none of them has added the flag
with a specific justification.  I suspect most of them just copied from
other existing users and others just thought it might be a good idea to
use without any measuring.  This suggests that GFP_TEMPORARY just
motivates for cargo cult usage without any reasoning.

I believe that our gfp flags are quite complex already and especially
those with highlevel semantic should be clearly defined to prevent from
confusion and abuse.  Therefore I propose dropping GFP_TEMPORARY and
replace all existing users to simply use GFP_KERNEL.  Please note that
SLAB users with shrinkers will still get __GFP_RECLAIMABLE heuristic and
so they will be placed properly for memory fragmentation prevention.

I can see reasons we might want some gfp flag to reflect shorterm
allocations but I propose starting from a clear semantic definition and
only then add users with proper justification.

This was been brought up before LSF this year by Matthew [1] and it
turned out that GFP_TEMPORARY really doesn't have a clear semantic.  It
seems to be a heuristic without any measured advantage for most (if not
all) its current users.  The follow up discussion has revealed that
opinions on what might be temporary allocation differ a lot between
developers.  So rather than trying to tweak existing users into a
semantic which they haven't expected I propose to simply remove the flag
and start from scratch if we really need a semantic for short term
allocations.

[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170118054945.GD18349@bombadil.infradead.org

[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix typo]
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: coding-style fixes]
[sfr@canb.auug.org.au: drm/i915: fix up]
  Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170816144703.378d4f4d@canb.auug.org.au
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170728091904.14627-1-mhocko@kernel.orgSigned-off-by: NMichal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: NStephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Acked-by: NMel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Acked-by: NVlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      0ee931c4
  7. 30 3月, 2017 1 次提交
  9. 16 3月, 2017 1 次提交
  11. 02 3月, 2017 2 次提交
  13. 14 1月, 2017 5 次提交