Re: [PATCH 04/10] mm, page_alloc: Remove unnecessary taking of a seqlock when cpusets are disabled

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>]

On 07/20/2015 10:00 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
>
> There is a seqcounter that protects spurious allocation fails when a task
> is changing the allowed nodes in a cpuset. There is no need to check the
> seqcounter until a cpuset exists.

If cpusets become enabled betwen _begin and _retry, then it will retry 
due to comparing with 0, but not crash, so it's safe.

> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>

> ---
>   include/linux/cpuset.h | 6 ++++++
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpuset.h b/include/linux/cpuset.h
> index 1b357997cac5..6eb27cb480b7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpuset.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpuset.h
> @@ -104,6 +104,9 @@ extern void cpuset_print_task_mems_allowed(struct task_struct *p);
>    */
>   static inline unsigned int read_mems_allowed_begin(void)
>   {
> +	if (!cpusets_enabled())
> +		return 0;
> +
>   	return read_seqcount_begin(&current->mems_allowed_seq);
>   }
>
> @@ -115,6 +118,9 @@ static inline unsigned int read_mems_allowed_begin(void)
>    */
>   static inline bool read_mems_allowed_retry(unsigned int seq)
>   {
> +	if (!cpusets_enabled())
> +		return false;
> +
>   	return read_seqcount_retry(&current->mems_allowed_seq, seq);
>   }

--
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>