Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933071AbZJGMrI (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:47:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932972AbZJGMrH (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:47:07 -0400 Received: from tomts20.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.74]:50424 "EHLO tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932936AbZJGMrG (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:47:06 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlMFAJcnzEpMROOX/2dsb2JhbACBUtNWhCoE Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 08:46:28 -0400 From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: cl@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pekka Enberg , Tejun Heo , Mel Gorman , mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx V5 19/19] SLUB: Experimental new fastpath w/o interrupt disable Message-ID: <20091007124628.GB27363@Krystal> References: <20091006233654.815079668@gentwo.org> <20091006233733.153341605@gentwo.org> <20091007025440.GB4664@Krystal> <1254906707.26976.225.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1254906707.26976.225.camel@twins> X-Editor: vi X-Info: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080 X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.27.31-grsec (i686) X-Uptime: 08:37:18 up 49 days, 23:26, 2 users, load average: 0.22, 0.27, 0.24 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1687 Lines: 53 * Peter Zijlstra (peterz@infradead.org) wrote: > On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 22:54 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > + local_irq_save(flags); > > > + preempt_enable(); /* Get rid of count */ > > > > Ugh ? Is that legit ? > > Yeah, it reads rather awkward, and the comment doesn't make it any > better, but what he's doing is: > > slab_alloc() > preempt_disable(); > __slab_alloc() > local_irq_save(flags); > preempt_enable(); > Yes, I understood this is what he was doing, but I wonder about the impact on the scheduler. If we have: * Jiffy 1 -- timer interrupt * preempt disable * Jiffy 2 -- timer interrupt -> here, the scheduler is disabled, so the timer interrupt is skipped. The scheduler depends on preempt_check_resched() at preempt_enable() to execute in a bounded amount of time. * local_irq_save * preempt_enable -> interrupts are disabled, scheduler execution is skipped. * local_irq_restore -> the interrupt line is low. The scheduler won't be called. There is no preempt_check_resched() call. * Jiffy 3 -- timer interrupt -> Scheduler finally gets executed, missing a whole jiffy. At the very least, I think an explicit preempt_check_resched should be added after local_irq_restore(). Also, preempt_enable here should be replaced with preempt_enable_no_resched(). Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 -- 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/