[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091012153844.GA29116@Krystal>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 11:38:44 -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 Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > > If I just enable interrupts there then the preempt check will not be
> > > done and we may miss a scheduling point.
> > >
> >
> > That's why you should do:
> >
> > local_irq_save()
> > preempt_enable_no_resched()
> > ...
> > local_irq_restore()
> > preempt_check_resched()
>
> What is the difference then to
>
> local_irq_save()
>
> ...
>
> local_irq_enable();
> preempt_enable();
>
> ?
local_irq_save()
preempt_enable_no_resched() <- barrier()
...
local_irq_enable()
preempt_check_resched()
vs
local_irq_save()
...
local_irq_enable();
preempt_enable(); <- barrier()
In the first scenario, the compiler barrier is at the beginning of the
slow path function, which should impose less restrictions on the compiler
optimizations.
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