Re: [this_cpu_xx V5 19/19] SLUB: Experimental new fastpath w/ointerrupt disable

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 08:44 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Even if only done with interrupt off, and check resched is called after
> each irq enable following this critical section ? I'd like to understand
> the reason behind your rejection for this specific case.

No, the thing you proposed:

> preempt disable()
> fast path attempt
>   if (fast path already taken) {
>     local_irq_save();
>     preempt_enable_no_resched();
>     slow path {
>       if (!flags & GFP_ATOMIC) {
>         local_irq_enable();
>         preempt_check_resched();
>         ...
>         local_irq_disable();
>       }
>     }
>     local_irq_restore();
>     preempt_check_resched();
>     return;
>   }
> preempt_enable()

Seems ok.

I just don't get why Christoph is getting all upset about the
need_resched() check in preempt_enable(), its still cheaper than poking
at the interrupt flags.
--
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/