From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936564AbXHNWWi (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:22:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763425AbXHNWQU (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:16:20 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:49245 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759644AbXHNWQS (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:16:18 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:16:16 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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