On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:10:27PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:26:16 -0700
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:08:21 +0100 Mel Gorman
> > wrote:
> >
> > > IRQ context were excluded from using the Per-Cpu-Pages (PCP) lists caching
> > > of order
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:26:16 -0700
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:08:21 +0100 Mel Gorman
> wrote:
>
> > IRQ context were excluded from using the Per-Cpu-Pages (PCP) lists caching
> > of order-0 pages in commit 374ad05ab64d ("mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu
> > allocator for irq
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:53:02PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> I will appreciate review of this patch.
I had reviewed it but didn't have much to say other than the in_interrupt()
is inconvenient rather than wrong.
> My micro-benchmarking show we
> basically return to same page alloc
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:08:21 +0100 Mel Gorman
wrote:
> IRQ context were excluded from using the Per-Cpu-Pages (PCP) lists caching
> of order-0 pages in commit 374ad05ab64d ("mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu
> allocator for irq-safe requests").
>
> This unfortunately also included excluded SoftI
I will appreciate review of this patch. My micro-benchmarking show we
basically return to same page alloc+free cost as before 374ad05ab64d
("mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu allocator for irq-safe requests").
Which sort of invalidates this attempt of optimizing the page allocator.
But Mel's micro-
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer
IRQ context were excluded from using the Per-Cpu-Pages (PCP) lists caching
of order-0 pages in commit 374ad05ab64d ("mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu
allocator for irq-safe requests").
This unfortunately also included excluded SoftIRQ. This hurt the performance
for
