Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: Mark nice +10

[Catalin Marinas]

On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 09:00 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 11:30 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > The minimal fix below removes scan_yield() and adds a 
> > > > > cond_resched() to the outmost (safe) place of the scanning 
> > > > > thread. This solves the regression.
> > > > 
> > > > With CONFIG_PREEMPT disabled it won't reschedule during the bss 
> > > > scanning but I don't see this as a real issue (task stacks 
> > > > scanning probably takes longer anyway).
> > > 
> > > Yeah. I suspect one more cond_resched() could be added - i just 
> > > didnt see an obvious place for it, given that scan_block() is being 
> > > called with asymetric held-locks contexts.
> > 
> > Now that your patch was merged, I propose adding a few more 
> > cond_resched() calls, useful for the !PREEMPT case:
> 
> note, please also merge the renicing fix you sent. I have it tested 
> in tip:out-of-tree, attached below.

I have this patch in my kmemleak branch
(http://www.linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=kmemleak)
which I plan to push to Linus, only that I was waiting to accumulate a
few more patches (to avoid sending too many pull requests).

I'll fix the scan_mutex lock as well, following comments and send a pull
request tonight.

Thanks.

-- 
Catalin

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/