Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759458AbZJGPDh (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:03:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759429AbZJGPDg (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:03:36 -0400 Received: from tomts43-srv.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.110]:51936 "EHLO tomts43-srv.bellnexxia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759413AbZJGPDf (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:03:35 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlMFAApHzEpMROOX/2dsb2JhbACBUtU8gjSBdgQ Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:02:57 -0400 From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Peter Zijlstra , 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: <20091007150257.GA8508@Krystal> References: <20091006233654.815079668@gentwo.org> <20091006233733.153341605@gentwo.org> <20091007025440.GB4664@Krystal> <1254906707.26976.225.camel@twins> <20091007124628.GB27363@Krystal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Editor: vi X-Info: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080 X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.27.31-grsec (i686) X-Uptime: 10:56:45 up 50 days, 1:46, 3 users, load average: 0.08, 0.22, 0.23 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: 2031 Lines: 57 * Christoph Lameter (cl@linux-foundation.org) wrote: > On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > > 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. > > preempt disable does not disable interrupts. The timer interrupt will > occur. The scheduler may not reschedule another job on this processor > when the timer interrupt calls the scheduler_tick. It > may not do load balancing. Yes. All you say here is true. I'm concerned about the _impact_ of this along with the preempt/irqoff dance you propose. Trimming the following key points from my execution scenario indeed skips the problem altogether. Usually, when preemption is disabled, the scheduler restrain from executing. *Now the important point*: the criterion that bounds the maximum amount of time before the scheduler will re-check for pending preemption is when preempt_enable() will re-activate preemption. But because you run preempt_enable with interrupts off, the scheduler check is not done. And it's not done when interrupts are re-activated neither. Please go back to my complete execution scenario, you'll probably see the light. ;) Thanks, Mathieu > > > Also, preempt_enable here should be replaced with > > preempt_enable_no_resched(). > > Used to have that in earlier incarnations but I saw a lot of these being > removed lately. > > > -- 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/