[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0812081218471.26257@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:23:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Tim Blechmann <tim@...ngt.org>
cc: linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RT] avoid preemption in memory controller code
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Tim Blechmann wrote:
> > > the lru_lock of struct mem_group_per_zone is used to avoid preemption
> > > during the __mem_cgroup_stat_add_safe function.
> > > therefore, a raw_spinlock_t should be used.
> >
> > What is the reason that this must avoid preemption?
>
> it guards a call to smp_processor_id() in __mem_cgroup_stat_add_safe().
> see http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.rt.user/3690
We could simply create a
preempt_disable_rt();
that will only disable preemption when CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT is set.
and then we could add
int cpu;
preempt_disable_rt();
cpu = smp_processor_id();
stat->cpustat[cpu].count[idx] += val;
preempt_enable_rt();
Or something similar.
-- Steve
>
> > Is there another
> > way to solve this? I rather not just add a raw spinlock if we can
> > help it.
>
> not sure, maybe one can disable preemption for that specific function?
>
> tim
>
> --
> tim@...ngt.org
> http://tim.klingt.org
>
> Art is either a complaint or do something else
> John Cage quoting Jasper Johns
>
--
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