Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Fix SLQB on memoryless configurations V2

[Christoph Lameter]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Can you spot if there is something fundamentally wrong with patch 2? I.e. what
> is wrong with treating the closest node as local instead of only the
> closest node?

Depends on the way locking is done for percpu queues (likely lockless).
A misidentification of the numa locality of an object may result in locks
not being taken that should have been taken.

> > Or just allow SLQB for !NUMA configurations and merge it now.
> >
>
> Forcing SLQB !NUMA will not rattle out any existing list issues
> unfortunately :(.

But it will make SLQB work right in permitted configurations. The NUMA
issues can then be fixed later upstream.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/