Nick Piggin wrote:
Nick Piggin wrote:
Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
I like the patch a lot and already did bench it on our db setup.
However,
I'm seeing a negative regression compare to a very very crappy patch
(see
attached, you can laugh at me for doing things like that :-).
OK - if we go that way, perhaps the following patch may be the
way to do it.
Here.
Actually yes this is good I think.
What I was worried about is that you could lose some fairness due
to not being put on the queue before allocation.
This is probably a silly thing to worry about, because up until
that point things aren't really deterministic anyway (and before this
patchset it would try doing a GFP_ATOMIC allocation first anyway).
However after the subsequent locking rework, both these get_request()
calls will be performed under the same lock - giving you the same
fairness. So it is nothing to worry about anyway!
It is a bit subtle: get_request may only drop the lock and return NULL
(after retaking the lock), if we fail on a memory allocation. If we
just fail due to unavailable queue slots, then the lock is never
dropped. And the mem allocation can't fail because it is a mempool
alloc with GFP_NOIO.
Nick
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
