Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: compaction: Minimise the time IRQs aredisabled while isolating pages for migration

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 08:01:31AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> I am not sure it's good if we release the lock whenever lru->lock was contended
> unconditionally? There are many kinds of lru_lock operations(add to lru, 
> del from lru, isolation, reclaim, activation, deactivation and so on).

This is mostly to mirror cond_resched_lock (which actually uses
spin_needbreak but it's ok to have it also when preempt is off). I
doubt it makes a big difference but I tried to mirror
cond_resched_lock.

> Do we really need to release the lock whenever all such operations were contened?
> I think what we need is just spin_is_contended_irqcontext.
> Otherwise, please write down the comment for justifying for it.

What is spin_is_contended_irqcontext?

> This patch is for reducing for irq latency but do we have to check signal 
> in irq hold time?

I think it's good idea to check the signal in case the loop is very
long and this is run in direct compaction context.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/