[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091007151940.GA10052@Krystal>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:19:40 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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
* Christoph Lameter (cl@...ux-foundation.org) wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > Usually, when preemption is disabled, the scheduler restrain from
> > executing. *Now the important point*: the criterion that bounds the
> > maximum amount of time before the scheduler will re-check for pending
> > preemption is when preempt_enable() will re-activate preemption.
>
> Which creates additional overhead in the allocator.
>
Which we like to keep as low as possible, I agree.
> > But because you run preempt_enable with interrupts off, the scheduler
> > check is not done. And it's not done when interrupts are re-activated
> > neither.
>
> Ok so we should be moving the preempt_enable after the irq enable. Then we
> will call into the scheduler at the end of the slow path. This may add
> significantly more overhead that we had before when we simply disabled
> and enabled interrupts...
>
You are already calling the scheduler when ending the _fast_ path. I
don't see the problem with calling it when you end the slow path
execution.
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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