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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>