[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081105185458.968B.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 18:55:53 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, npiggin@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hugh@...itas.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, riel@...hat.com,
lee.schermerhorn@...com, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] lru_add_drain_all() don't use schedule_on_each_cpu()
> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 16:20 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > I guess we should document our newly discovered schedule_on_each_cpu()
> > > problems before we forget about it and later rediscover it.
> >
> > Now, schedule_on_each_cpu() is only used by lru_add_drain_all().
> > and smp_call_function() is better way for cross call.
> >
> > So I propose
> > 1. lru_add_drain_all() use smp_call_function()
> > 2. remove schedule_on_each_cpu()
> >
> >
> > Thought?
>
> At the very least that will not solve the problem on -rt where a lot of
> the smp_call_function() users are converted to schedule_on_each_cpu().
yup.
Now, I testing "simple dropping lru_add_drain_all() in mlock path" patch.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists