[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1210171246290.28214@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:50:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
cc: Kamezawa Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
bhutchings@...arflare.com,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch for-3.7] mm, mempolicy: fix printing stack contents in
numa_maps
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > I think this refcounting is better than using task_lock().
>
> I don't think so. get_vma_policy() is used from fast path. In other
> words, number of
> atomic ops is sensible for allocation performance.
There are enhancements that we can make with refcounting: for instance, we
may want to avoid doing it in the super-fast path when the policy is
default_policy and then just do
if (mpol != &default_policy)
mpol_put(mpol);
> Instead, I'd like
> to use spinlock
> for shared mempolicy instead of mutex.
>
Um, this was just changed to a mutex last week in commit b22d127a39dd
("mempolicy: fix a race in shared_policy_replace()") so that sp_alloc()
can be done with GFP_KERNEL, so I didn't consider reverting that behavior.
Are you nacking that patch, which you acked, now?
--
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