On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:28:33 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> [2009-02-12 12:28:54]: > > > > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:21:13 +0100 > > > Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > The question is, are these local IRQ flags manipulations really needed > > in this code, and if yes, why? > > We needed the local IRQ flags, since these counters are updated from > page fault context and from reclaim context with lru_lock held with > IRQ's disabled. I've been thinking about replacing the spin lock with > seq lock, but have not gotten to it yet. > Hmm ? I can't understand. Why we have to disable IRQ here again ? And, - try_to_unmap() is called in shrink_page_list(), there, no zone->lru_lock. - page fault path doesn't hold zone->lru_lock. My concern is only shmem. But I think it doesn't call charge() within lock, actually. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
