Re: [PATCH] memcg: remove unneeded preempt_disable

[Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1230 bytes --]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:41:53 +0200, Johannes Weiner said:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 10:26:58AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:38:00 +0200, Johannes Weiner said:
> > 
> > > Note that on non-x86, these operations themselves actually disable and
> > > reenable preemption each time, so you trade a pair of add and sub on
> > > x86
> > > 
> > > -	preempt_disable()
> > > 	__this_cpu_xxx()
> > > 	__this_cpu_yyy()
> > > -	preempt_enable()
> > > 
> > > with
> > > 
> > > 	preempt_disable()
> > > 	__this_cpu_xxx()
> > > +	preempt_enable()
> > > +	preempt_disable()
> > > 	__this_cpu_yyy()
> > > 	preempt_enable()
> > > 
> > > everywhere else.
> > 
> > That would be an unexpected race condition on non-x86, if you expected _xxx and
> > _yyy to be done together without a preempt between them. Would take mere
> > mortals forever to figure that one out. :)
> 
> That should be fine, we don't require the two counters to be perfectly
> coherent with respect to each other, which is the justification for
> this optimization in the first place.

I meant the general case - when reviewing code, I wouldn't expect 2 lines of code
wrapped in preempt disable/enable to have a preempt window in the middle. ;)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]