Re: [PATCH 0/11 v2] Use local_lock for pcp protection and reduce stat overhead

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 12:56:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 09:24:12PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Why local_lock? PREEMPT_RT considers the following sequence to be unsafe > > as documented in Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst > > > >local_irq_disable(); > >

Re: [PATCH 0/11 v2] Use local_lock for pcp protection and reduce stat overhead

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 09:24:12PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > Why local_lock? PREEMPT_RT considers the following sequence to be unsafe > as documented in Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst > >local_irq_disable(); >raw_spin_lock(); Almost, the above is actually OK on RT. The problematic

[PATCH 0/11 v2] Use local_lock for pcp protection and reduce stat overhead

For MM people, the whole series is relevant but patch 3 needs particular attention for memory hotremove as I had problems testing it because full zone removal always failed for me. For RT people, the most interesting patches are 2, 9 and 10 with 2 being the most important. This series requires