On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 02:48:31PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > > But that still creates lots of overhead each time we take the lru lock!
> >
> > A lot of overhead in what way? Setting a flag in a cache hot
> > per CPU data variable shouldn't be more than a few cycles.
>
> Could you be a bit more specific? Where do you want to place the data?
DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, zone_flag);
get_cpu(); // likely already true and then not needed
__get_cpu(zone_flag) = 1;
/* wmb is implied in spin_lock I think */
spin_lock(&zone->lru_lock);
...
spin_unlock(&zone->lru_lock);
__get_cpu(zone_flag) = 0;
put_cpu();
Interrupt handler
if (!__get_cpu(zone_flag)) {
do things with zone locks
}
The interrupt handler shouldn't touch zone_flag. If it wants
to it would need to be converted to a local_t and incremented/decremented
(should be about the same cost at least on architectures with sane
local_t implementation)
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
