[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimXLAV-xssvuKMs8ZqUKsRgHDedjTiGM6fxQ-ku@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:29:34 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, tee@....com,
Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: avoid atomic operation in test_and_set_bit_lock
if possible
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com> wrote:
>
> The problem was observed with __lock_page() (in a variant not
> upstream for reasons not known to me), and prefixing e.g.
> trylock_page() with an extra PageLocked() check yielded the
> below quoted improvements.
Ok. __lock_page() _definitely_ should do the test_bit() thing first,
because it's normally called from lock_page() that has already tested
the bit.
But it already seems to do that, so I'm wondering what your variant is.
I'm also a bit surprised that lock_page() is that hot (unless your
_lock_page() variant is simply too broken and ends up spinning?).
Maybe we have some path that takes the page lock unnecessarily? What's
the load?
Linus
--
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