From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id mA59tv8e001575 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 5 Nov 2008 18:55:57 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2698D45DE5C for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 18:55:57 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F28045DE54 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 18:55:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 256141DB8049 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 18:55:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml14.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.104]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804C01DB804F for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 18:55:54 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] lru_add_drain_all() don't use schedule_on_each_cpu() In-Reply-To: <1225878704.7803.2771.camel@twins> References: <2f11576a0810290020i362441edkb494b10c10b17401@mail.gmail.com> <1225878704.7803.2771.camel@twins> Message-Id: <20081105185458.968B.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 18:55:53 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, npiggin@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hugh@veritas.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, riel@redhat.com, lee.schermerhorn@hp.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 16:20 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > I guess we should document our newly discovered schedule_on_each_cpu() > > > problems before we forget about it and later rediscover it. > > > > Now, schedule_on_each_cpu() is only used by lru_add_drain_all(). > > and smp_call_function() is better way for cross call. > > > > So I propose > > 1. lru_add_drain_all() use smp_call_function() > > 2. remove schedule_on_each_cpu() > > > > > > Thought? > > At the very least that will not solve the problem on -rt where a lot of > the smp_call_function() users are converted to schedule_on_each_cpu(). yup. Now, I testing "simple dropping lru_add_drain_all() in mlock path" patch. Thanks. -- 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