From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:16:16 +0200 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [RFC 4/9] Atomic reclaim: Save irq flags in vmscan.c Message-ID: <20070814221616.GG23308@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20070814204454.GC22202@one.firstfloor.org> <20070814212355.GA23308@one.firstfloor.org> <20070814212955.GC23308@one.firstfloor.org> <20070814214430.GD23308@one.firstfloor.org> <20070814215659.GF23308@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 03:07:10PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > There are more spinlocks needed. So we would just check the whole bunch > and fail if any of them are used? Yes zone_flag would apply to all of them. > > > 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) > > That would mean we need to fork the code for reclaim? Not with the local_t increment. -Andi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org