Re: [PATCH 5/10] mm/memcg: introduce page_relock_lruvec

[Hugh Dickins]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> 
> No perforamce impact by replacing spin_lock_irq()/spin_unlock_irq() to
> spin_lock_irqsave() and spin_unlock_irqrestore() ?

None that I noticed - but that is not at all a reassuring answer!

It worries me a little.  I think it would make more or less difference
on different architectures, and I forget where x86 stands there - one
of the more or the less affected?  Worth branches down inside
page_relock_lruvec()?

It's also unfortunate to be "losing" the information of where _irq
is needed and where _irqsave (but not much gets lost with git).

It's something that can be fixed - and I think Konstantin's version
already keeps the variants: I just didn't want to get confused by them,
while focussing on the locking details.

Hugh
--
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/