[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091008124456.GA13307@Krystal>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 08:44:56 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <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
* Peter Zijlstra (peterz@...radead.org) wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 11:21 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Well yes that gives rise to the thought of using
> >
> > preempt_enable_no_sched()
>
> NACK, delaying the reschedule is not an option
Even if only done with interrupt off, and check resched is called after
each irq enable following this critical section ? I'd like to understand
the reason behind your rejection for this specific case.
Thanks,
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