From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1757212AbcLUSds (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:33:48 -0500
Received: from mail-pg0-f66.google.com ([74.125.83.66]:33526 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753884AbcLUSdq (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:33:46 -0500
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:33:31 +1000
From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.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
Message-ID: <20161222043331.31aab9cc@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFx-YmpZ4NBU0oSw_iJV8jEMaL8qX-HCH=DrutQ65UYR5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20161219225826.F8CB356F@viggo.jf.intel.com>
        <CA+55aFwK6JdSy9v_BkNYWNdfK82sYA1h3qCSAJQ0T45cOxeXmQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <156a5b34-ad3b-d0aa-83c9-109b366c1bdf@linux.intel.com>
        <CA+55aFxVzes5Jt-hC9BLVSb99x6K-_WkLO-_JTvCjhf5wuK_4w@mail.gmail.com>
        <CA+55aFwy6+ya_E8N3DFbrq2XjbDs8LWe=W_qW8awimbxw26bJw@mail.gmail.com>
        <20161221080931.GQ3124@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <20161221083247.GW3174@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <CA+55aFx-YmpZ4NBU0oSw_iJV8jEMaL8qX-HCH=DrutQ65UYR5A@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: IBM
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 10:02:27 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, here's mine.. compiles and boots on a NUMA x86_64 machine.  
> 
> So I like how your patch is smaller, but your patch is also broken.
> 
> First off, the whole contention bit is *not* NUMA-specific. It should
> help non-NUMA too, by avoiding the stupid extra cache miss.
> 
> Secondly, CONFIG_NUMA is a broken thing to test anyway, since adding a
> bit for the NUMA case can overflow the page flags as far as I can tell
> (MIPS seems to support NUMA on 32-bit, for example, but I didn't
> really check the Kconfig details). Making it dependent on 64-bit might
> be ok (and would fix the issue above - I don't think we really need to
> care too much about 32-bit any more)
> 
> But making it conditional at all means that now you have those two
> different cases for this, which is a maintenance nightmare. So don't
> do it even if we could say "screw 32-bit".
> 
> Anyway, the conditional thing could be fixed by just taking Nick's
> patch 1/2, and your patch (with the conditional bits stripped out).
> 
> I do think your approach of just re-using the existing bit waiting
> with just a page-specific waiting function is nicer than Nick's "let's
> just roll new waiting functions" approach. It also avoids the extra
> initcall.
> 
> Nick, comments?

Well yes we should take my patch 1 and use the new bit for this
purpose regardless of what way we go with patch 2. I'll reply to
that in the other mail.

Thanks,
Nick