[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090430143819.GF14696@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:38:19 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, thomas.pi@...or.dea,
Yuriy Lalym <ylalym@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ltt-dev@...ts.casi.polymtl.ca, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix dirty page accounting in
redirty_page_for_writepage()
* Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > The patch below makes the fallback/slowpath irq safe.
>
> Yes but sometimes you are already irq safe and such a fallback
> would create significant irq/enable/disable stack operations etc
> overhead for architectures that are using the fallback.
It's a fallback slowpath - non-x86 architectures should still fill
in a real implementation of course.
> I think we really need another __xxx op here. Especially since
> these operations are often in critical code paths.
That's a receipe for fragility: as using __xxx will still be
irq-safe on x86, and 95% of the testing is done on x86, so this
opens up the path to non-x86 bugs.
So we first have to see the list of architectures that _cannot_
implement an irq-safe op here via a single machine instruction.
x86, ia64 and powerpc should be fine.
Ingo
--
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