On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:04:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On 29 May 2013 18:51, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > @@ -384,6 +384,21 @@ void tlb_remove_table(struct mmu_gather *tlb, void *table)
> >
> > #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE */
> >
> > +static inline void cond_resched_tlb(struct mmu_gather *tlb)
> > +{
> > +#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT
> > + /*
> > + * For full preempt kernels we must do regular batching like
> > + * SMP, see tlb_fast_mode(). For !PREEMPT we can 'cheat' and
> > + * do a flush before our voluntary 'yield'.
> > + */
> > + if (need_resched()) {
> > + tlb_flush_mmu(tlb);
> > + cond_resched();
> > + }
> > +#endif
> > +}
>
> Does it matter that in the CONFIG_PREEMPT case, you no longer call
> cond_resched()? I guess we can just rely on the kernel full preemption
> to reschedule as needed.
Exactly, the preempt_enable from the spin_unlock in pte_unmap_unlock()
will most likely immediately trigger a preemption.
And since we do full batching for PREEMPT doing extra flushes would be
detrimental for performance -- however unlikely it is we'll still see
the need_resched() there.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>