Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:05:06PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Started performance benchmarking: > > 163 cycles = current state > > 183 cycles = with BH disable + in_irq > > 218 cycles = with BH disable + in_irq + irqs_disabled > > > > Thus, the performance numbers unfortunately looks bad,

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:05:06PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Started performance benchmarking: > > 163 cycles = current state > > 183 cycles = with BH disable + in_irq > > 218 cycles = with BH disable + in_irq + irqs_disabled > > > > Thus, the performance numbers unfortunately looks bad,

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:07:08PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:04:36 +0100 > Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:44:41PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > > Regardless or using in_irq() (or in combi with

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 05:07:08PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:04:36 +0100 > Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:44:41PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > > Regardless or using in_irq() (or in combi with in_nmi()) I get the > > > >

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:04:36 +0100 Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:44:41PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > Regardless or using in_irq() (or in combi with in_nmi()) I get the > > > following warning below: > > > > > > [0.00] Kernel

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:04:36 +0100 Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:44:41PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > Regardless or using in_irq() (or in combi with in_nmi()) I get the > > > following warning below: > > > > > > [0.00] Kernel command line: > > >

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:44:41PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > Regardless or using in_irq() (or in combi with in_nmi()) I get the > > following warning below: > > > > [0.00] Kernel command line: > > BOOT_IMAGE=/vmlinuz-4.11.0-rc3-net-next-page-alloc-softirq+ > >

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:44:41PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > Regardless or using in_irq() (or in combi with in_nmi()) I get the > > following warning below: > > > > [0.00] Kernel command line: > > BOOT_IMAGE=/vmlinuz-4.11.0-rc3-net-next-page-alloc-softirq+ > >

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:35:02 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:12:23AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:49:58 +0200 > > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:44:41PM +0200,

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:35:02 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:12:23AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:49:58 +0200 > > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:44:41PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > > @@

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:12:23AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:49:58 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:44:41PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > @@ -2481,7 +2481,11 @@ void free_hot_cold_page(struct

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:12:23AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:49:58 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:44:41PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > @@ -2481,7 +2481,11 @@ void free_hot_cold_page(struct page *page, bool > > >

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:49:58 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:44:41PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > @@ -2481,7 +2481,11 @@ void free_hot_cold_page(struct page *page, bool cold) > > unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn(page); > > int

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:49:58 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:44:41PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > @@ -2481,7 +2481,11 @@ void free_hot_cold_page(struct page *page, bool cold) > > unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn(page); > > int migratetype; > > > > -

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:44:41PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > @@ -2481,7 +2481,11 @@ void free_hot_cold_page(struct page *page, bool cold) > unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn(page); > int migratetype; > > - if (in_interrupt()) { > + /* > + * Exclude (hard) IRQ

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 09:44:41PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > @@ -2481,7 +2481,11 @@ void free_hot_cold_page(struct page *page, bool cold) > unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn(page); > int migratetype; > > - if (in_interrupt()) { > + /* > + * Exclude (hard) IRQ

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:11:44 +0200 Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:12:26 -0700 Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:19:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:59:28AM +0200, Jesper

Re: in_irq_or_nmi() and RFC patch

On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:11:44 +0200 Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:12:26 -0700 Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:19:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:59:28AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > > > > >