[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51819B9F.3090407@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 15:47:59 -0700
From: Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mmzone: note that node_size_lock should be manipulated
via pgdat_resize_lock()
On 05/01/2013 03:42 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013, Cody P Schafer wrote:
>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> Nack, pgdat_resize_unlock() is unnecessary if irqs are known to be
>>> disabled.
>>>
>>
>> All this patch does is is indicate that rather than using node_size_lock
>> directly (as it won't be around without CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG), one should use
>> the pgdat_resize_[un]lock() helper macros.
>>
>
> I think that's obvious given the lock is surrounded by
> #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG. The fact remains that hotplug code need not
> use pgdat_resize_lock() if irqs are disabled.
>
Obvious how? This comment is the documentation on how to handle locking
of pg_data_t, and doesn't mention pgdat_resize_lock() at all. Sure, a
newcomer would probably find pgdat_resize_lock() eventually, even more
so if they were interested in performance gains from not re-disabling
local irqs.
I don't see a convincing reason to omit relevant documentation and make
it more difficult to find the "right" way to do things.
--
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