lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kmemleak: Mark nice +10
From
Date
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 09:00 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 11:30 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The minimal fix below removes scan_yield() and adds a
> > > > > cond_resched() to the outmost (safe) place of the scanning
> > > > > thread. This solves the regression.
> > > >
> > > > With CONFIG_PREEMPT disabled it won't reschedule during the bss
> > > > scanning but I don't see this as a real issue (task stacks
> > > > scanning probably takes longer anyway).
> > >
> > > Yeah. I suspect one more cond_resched() could be added - i just
> > > didnt see an obvious place for it, given that scan_block() is being
> > > called with asymetric held-locks contexts.
> >
> > Now that your patch was merged, I propose adding a few more
> > cond_resched() calls, useful for the !PREEMPT case:
>
> note, please also merge the renicing fix you sent. I have it tested
> in tip:out-of-tree, attached below.

I have this patch in my kmemleak branch
(http://www.linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=kmemleak)
which I plan to push to Linus, only that I was waiting to accumulate a
few more patches (to avoid sending too many pull requests).

I'll fix the scan_mutex lock as well, following comments and send a pull
request tonight.

Thanks.

--
Catalin



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-03 10:13    [W:0.341 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site