[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1254926233.26976.250.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:37:13 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: cl@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx V5 19/19] SLUB: Experimental new fastpath w/o
interrupt disable
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 09:31 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra (peterz@...radead.org) wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 08:46 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > * local_irq_restore
> > > -> the interrupt line is low. The scheduler won't be called. There is
> > > no preempt_check_resched() call.
> >
> > That would be an issue with all irq disable sections, so I don't think
> > this is actually true.
> >
>
> AFAIK, irq disable sections rely on the fact that if you get a timer
> interrupt during this section, the timer interrupt line stays triggered
> for the duration of the irqoff section. Therefore, when interrupts are
> re-enabled, the interrupt kicks in, so does the scheduler.
>
> This is not the case with the preempt/irqoff dance proposed by
> Christoph.
Ah, you're quite right indeed.
--
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