[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110228230712.GR22700@random.random>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 00:07:12 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arthur Marsh <arthur.marsh@...ernode.on.net>,
Clemens Ladisch <cladisch@...glemail.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: compaction: Minimise the time IRQs are
disabled while isolating pages for migration
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 08:01:31AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> I am not sure it's good if we release the lock whenever lru->lock was contended
> unconditionally? There are many kinds of lru_lock operations(add to lru,
> del from lru, isolation, reclaim, activation, deactivation and so on).
This is mostly to mirror cond_resched_lock (which actually uses
spin_needbreak but it's ok to have it also when preempt is off). I
doubt it makes a big difference but I tried to mirror
cond_resched_lock.
> Do we really need to release the lock whenever all such operations were contened?
> I think what we need is just spin_is_contended_irqcontext.
> Otherwise, please write down the comment for justifying for it.
What is spin_is_contended_irqcontext?
> This patch is for reducing for irq latency but do we have to check signal
> in irq hold time?
I think it's good idea to check the signal in case the loop is very
long and this is run in direct compaction context.
--
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