From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B7D376B0047 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 04:36:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4B8F7F1A.6020000@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:36:26 +0800 From: Miao Xie Reply-To: miaox@cn.fujitsu.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpuset,mm: use rwlock to protect task->mempolicy and mems_allowed References: <4B8E3F77.6070201@cn.fujitsu.com> <20100304033017.GN8653@laptop> In-Reply-To: <20100304033017.GN8653@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: David Rientjes , Lee Schermerhorn , Paul Menage , Linux-Kernel , Linux-MM List-ID: on 2010-3-4 11:30, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:52:39PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote: >> if MAX_NUMNODES > BITS_PER_LONG, loading/storing task->mems_allowed or mems_allowed in >> task->mempolicy are not atomic operations, and the kernel page allocator gets an empty >> mems_allowed when updating task->mems_allowed or mems_allowed in task->mempolicy. So we >> use a rwlock to protect them to fix this probelm. > > Thanks for working on this. However, rwlocks are pretty nasty to use > when you have short critical sections and hot read-side (they're twice > as heavy as even spinlocks in that case). > > It's being used in the page allocator path, so I would say rwlocks are > almost a showstopper. Wouldn't it be possible to use a seqlock for this? > I will do my best to try to do it. Thanks! Miao -- 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