On Tue, 1 May 2012 00:04:47 -0300 Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Looking forward to it! > > After your work, 8192 in my patch may better be lowered a bit. > > Why not simply use spin_is_contented again? Are you afraid of > GET_DIRTY_LOG starved by pagefaults? No, but not so confident. I personally tested some extreme cases like "cond_resched for every iteration" and did not see any significant slowdown. That's all what I know now. I also think we should use spin_is_contended() again. What I am thinking now is whether it is possible to change cond_resched_lock() to satisfy our need like: cond_resched_lock(lock, spin_is_contended(lock)); // we want this cond_resched_lock(lock, spin_needbreak(lock)); // same as current cond_resched_lock(lock, false); // never check contention Although I have checked all callers, it is not certain whether they do not want to check lock contention when CONFIG_PREEMPT=no. I will send an RFC patch to get comments, if possible. Thanks, Takuya -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
