lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] vmscan: balance local_irq_disable() and local_irq_enable()
From
Date
t On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 20:53 +0100, John Kacur wrote:
> Balance local_irq_disable() and local_irq_enable() as well as
> spin_lock_irq() and spin_lock_unlock_irq
>
> Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 3 ++-
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index c26986c..b895025 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1200,8 +1200,9 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
> if (current_is_kswapd())
> __count_vm_events(KSWAPD_STEAL, nr_freed);
> __count_zone_vm_events(PGSTEAL, zone, nr_freed);
> + local_irq_enable();
>
> - spin_lock(&zone->lru_lock);
> + spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> /*
> * Put back any unfreeable pages.
> */


The above looks wrong. I don't know the code, but just by looking at
where the locking and interrupts are, I can take a guess.

Lets add a little more of the code:

local_irq_disable();
if (current_is_kswapd())
__count_vm_events(KSWAPD_STEAL, nr_freed);
__count_zone_vm_events(PGSTEAL, zone, nr_freed);
spin_lock(&zone->lru_lock);
/*
I'm guessing the __count_zone_vm_events and friends need interrupts
disabled here, probably due to per cpu stuff. But if you enable
interrupts before the spin_lock() you may let an interrupt come in and
invalidate what was done above it.

So no, I do not think enabling interrupts here is a good thing.

-- Steve




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-03 21:11    [W:0.071 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site