From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: silence soft lockups from unlock_page
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 11:32:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wihTRHMm1LC4AfidZptT9ZuT-wBjE2VhYzKBy66e4iwQw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200806180024.GB17456@casper.infradead.org>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 11:00 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> It wasn't clear to me whether Hugh thought it was an improvement or
> not that trylock was now less likely to jump the queue. There're
> the usual "fair is the opposite of throughput" kind of arguments.
Yeah, it could go either way. But on the whole, if the lock bit is
getting any contention, I think we'd rather have it be fair for
latency reasons.
That said, I'm not convinced about my patch, and I actually threw it
away without even testing it (sometimes I keep patches around in my
private tree for testing, and they can live there for months or even
years when I wonder if they are worth it, but this time I didn't
bother to go to the trouble).
If somebody is interested in pursuing this, I think that patch might
be a good starting point (and it _might_ even work), but it seemed to
be too subtle to really worry about unless somebody finds an actual
acute reason for it.
I think the existing patch narrowing the window is good, and it
clearly didn't hurt throughput (although that was almost certainly for
other reasons).
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-06 18:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-21 6:32 [RFC PATCH] mm: silence soft lockups from unlock_page Michal Hocko
[not found] ` <FCC3EB2D-9F11-4E9E-88F4-40B2926B35CC@lca.pw>
2020-07-21 11:25 ` Michal Hocko
[not found] ` <664A07B6-DBCD-4520-84F1-241A4E7A339F@lca.pw>
2020-07-21 12:17 ` Michal Hocko
[not found] ` <20200721132343.GA4261@lca.pw>
2020-07-21 13:38 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-21 14:17 ` Chris Down
2020-07-21 15:00 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-21 15:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-21 15:49 ` Michal Hocko
2020-07-22 18:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-22 21:29 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-22 22:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-22 23:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-23 0:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-23 12:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-23 17:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-23 18:01 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-23 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-23 19:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-24 14:45 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-23 20:03 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-23 23:11 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-23 23:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-24 0:07 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-24 0:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-24 3:45 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-24 15:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-24 17:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-24 23:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-25 2:08 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-25 2:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-25 10:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-25 18:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-25 19:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-25 19:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-26 13:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-25 21:19 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-26 4:22 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-26 20:30 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-26 20:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-26 22:09 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-07-27 19:35 ` Greg KH
2020-08-06 5:46 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-08-18 13:50 ` Greg KH
2020-08-06 5:21 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-08-06 17:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-08-06 18:00 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-08-06 18:32 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2020-08-07 18:41 ` Hugh Dickins
2020-08-07 19:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-08-07 19:35 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-08-03 13:14 ` Michal Hocko
2020-08-03 17:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-25 9:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-07-23 8:03 ` Michal Hocko
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='CAHk-=wihTRHMm1LC4AfidZptT9ZuT-wBjE2VhYzKBy66e4iwQw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.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).