Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: compaction: Minimise the time IRQs aredisabled while isolating pages for migration

From: Andrea Arcangeli
Date: Fri Feb 25 2011 - 19:17:07 EST

On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:32:04PM +0100, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> I don't understand why this conditional is broken up like this.
> cond_resched() will have the right checks anyway. Okay, you would
> save fatal_signal_pending() in the 'did one cluster' case. Is it that
> expensive? Couldn't this be simpler like
> did_cluster = ((low_pfn + 1) % SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) == 0
> lock_contended = spin_is_contended(&zone->lru_lock);
> if (did_cluster || lock_contended || need_resched()) {
> spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> cond_resched();
> spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> break;
> }
> instead?

If we don't release irqs first, how can need_resched get set in the
first place if the local apic irq can't run? I guess that's why
there's no cond_resched_lock_irq. BTW, I never liked too much clearing
interrupts for locks that can't ever be taken from irq (it's a
scalability boost to reduce contention but it makes things like above
confusing and it increases irq latency a bit.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at