From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb0-f200.google.com (mail-yb0-f200.google.com [209.85.213.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 122456B0005 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:17:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yb0-f200.google.com with SMTP id l2-v6so5828172ybk.17 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 07:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id y8-v6sor779452ybj.33.2018.04.10.07.17.10 for (Google Transport Security); Tue, 10 Apr 2018 07:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 07:17:07 -0700 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [RFC] mm, slab: reschedule cache_reap() on the same CPU Message-ID: <20180410141707.GL3126663@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> References: <20180410081531.18053-1-vbabka@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Christopher Lameter Cc: Vlastimil Babka , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Joonsoo Kim , David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , Lai Jiangshan , John Stultz , Thomas Gleixner , Stephen Boyd On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 09:12:08AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote: > > @@ -4074,7 +4086,8 @@ static void cache_reap(struct work_struct *w) > > next_reap_node(); > > out: > > /* Set up the next iteration */ > > - schedule_delayed_work(work, round_jiffies_relative(REAPTIMEOUT_AC)); > > + schedule_delayed_work_on(reap_work->cpu, work, > > + round_jiffies_relative(REAPTIMEOUT_AC)); > > schedule_delayed_work_on(smp_processor_id(), work, round_jiffies_relative(REAPTIMEOUT_AC)); > > instead all of the other changes? Yeah, that'd make more sense. Thanks. -- tejun