From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1758839AbZJMDha@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758839AbZJMDha (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:37:30 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753077AbZJMDh3
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:37:29 -0400
Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:43062 "EHLO
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752605AbZJMDh2 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 12 Oct 2009 23:37:28 -0400
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:35:55 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
       Oleg Nesterov <onestero@redhat.com>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH v2] mlock() doesn't wait to finish
 lru_add_drain_all()
Message-Id: <20091012203555.405bd9e7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20091013110409.C758.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
References: <20091013090347.C752.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<20091012185139.75c13648.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<20091013110409.C758.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:18:17 +0900 (JST) KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> The problem is in __lru_cache_add().
> 
> ============================================================
> void __lru_cache_add(struct page *page, enum lru_list lru)
> {
>         struct pagevec *pvec = &get_cpu_var(lru_add_pvecs)[lru];
> 
>         page_cache_get(page);
>         if (!pagevec_add(pvec, page))
>                 ____pagevec_lru_add(pvec, lru);
>         put_cpu_var(lru_add_pvecs);
> }
> ============================================================
> 
> current typical scenario is
> 1. preempt disable
> 2. assign lru_add_pvec
> 3. page_cache_get()
> 4. pvec->pages[pvec->nr++] = page;
> 5. preempt enable
> 
> but the preempt disabling assume drain_cpu_pagevecs() run on process context.
> we need to convert it with irq_disabling.

Nope, preempt_disable()/enable() can be performed in hard IRQ context. 
I see nothing in __lru_cache_add() which would cause problems when run
from hard IRQ.

Apart from latency, of course.  Doing a full smp_call_function() in
lru_add_drain_all() might get expensive if it's ever called with any
great frequency.

A smart implementation might take a peek at other cpu's queues and omit
the cross-CPU call if the queue is empty, for example..