[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] x86: avoid atomic operation in test_and_set_bit_lock if possible
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Jan Beulich <> wrote:
> The problem was observed with __lock_page() (in a variant not
> upstream for reasons not known to me), and prefixing e.g.
> trylock_page() with an extra PageLocked() check yielded the
> below quoted improvements.

Ok. __lock_page() _definitely_ should do the test_bit() thing first,
because it's normally called from lock_page() that has already tested
the bit.

But it already seems to do that, so I'm wondering what your variant is.

I'm also a bit surprised that lock_page() is that hot (unless your
_lock_page() variant is simply too broken and ends up spinning?).
Maybe we have some path that takes the page lock unnecessarily? What's
the load?


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-25 17:33    [W:0.097 / U:3.312 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site