[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202211426010.2012@eggly.anvils>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:36:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/10] mm/memcg: introduce page_relock_lruvec
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> No perforamce impact by replacing spin_lock_irq()/spin_unlock_irq() to
> spin_lock_irqsave() and spin_unlock_irqrestore() ?
None that I noticed - but that is not at all a reassuring answer!
It worries me a little. I think it would make more or less difference
on different architectures, and I forget where x86 stands there - one
of the more or the less affected? Worth branches down inside
page_relock_lruvec()?
It's also unfortunate to be "losing" the information of where _irq
is needed and where _irqsave (but not much gets lost with git).
It's something that can be fixed - and I think Konstantin's version
already keeps the variants: I just didn't want to get confused by them,
while focussing on the locking details.
Hugh
--
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