From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 20:26:56 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161221202640.081cd4bf@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161221080931.GQ3124@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 09:09:31 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:02:46AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll go back and try to see why the page flag contention patch didn't
> > > get applied.
> >
> > Ahh, a combination of warring patches by Nick and PeterZ, and worry
> > about the page flag bits.
>
> I think Nick actually had a patch freeing up a pageflag, although Hugh
> had a comment on that.
Yeah I think he basically acked it. It had a small compound debug
false positive but I think it's okay. I'm just testing it again.
> That said, I'm not a huge fan of his waiters patch, I'm still not sure
> why he wants to write another whole wait loop, but whatever. Whichever
> you prefer I suppose.
Ah, I was waiting for some feedback, thanks.
Well I wanted to do it that way to keep the manipulation of the new
bit under the same lock as the waitqueue, so as not to introduce new
memory orderings vs testing waitqueue_active.
Thanks,
Nick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-12-21 10:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-12-19 22:58 [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Dave Hansen
[not found] ` <CA+55aFwK6JdSy9v_BkNYWNdfK82sYA1h3qCSAJQ0T45cOxeXmQ@mail.gmail.com>
2016-12-20 0:20 ` Dave Hansen
2016-12-20 2:31 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-12-20 12:58 ` Mel Gorman
2016-12-20 13:21 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-12-20 17:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-12-20 18:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-12-21 8:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-21 8:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-12-21 18:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-12-21 18:33 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-12-21 19:01 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-12-21 19:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-12-22 2:07 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-12-22 19:28 ` Hugh Dickins
2016-12-21 10:26 ` Nicholas Piggin [this message]
2016-12-20 2:26 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-12-21 12:30 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-12-21 18:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-12-21 18:40 ` Nicholas Piggin
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=20161221202640.081cd4bf@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com \
--to=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=agruenba@redhat.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rpeterso@redhat.com \
--cc=swhiteho@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).