[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/10] mm/memcg: introduce page_relock_lruvec
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> No perforamce impact by replacing spin_lock_irq()/spin_unlock_irq() to
> spin_lock_irqsave() and spin_unlock_irqrestore() ?

None that I noticed - but that is not at all a reassuring answer!

It worries me a little. I think it would make more or less difference
on different architectures, and I forget where x86 stands there - one
of the more or the less affected? Worth branches down inside

It's also unfortunate to be "losing" the information of where _irq
is needed and where _irqsave (but not much gets lost with git).

It's something that can be fixed - and I think Konstantin's version
already keeps the variants: I just didn't want to get confused by them,
while focussing on the locking details.


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-21 23:39    [W:0.075 / U:7.740 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site