lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] vmscan: balance local_irq_disable() and local_irq_enable()
From
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> 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.
>

okay, and since we have already done local_irq_disable(), then that is
why we only need the spin_lock() and not the spin_lock_irq() flavour?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-03 21:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site