On Tue, 1 May 2012 00:04:47 -0300
Marcelo Tosatti <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Looking forward to it!
> > After your work, 8192 in my patch may better be lowered a bit.
>
> Why not simply use spin_is_contented again? Are you afraid of
> GET_DIRTY_LOG starved by pagefaults?
No, but not so confident.
I personally tested some extreme cases like "cond_resched for every
iteration" and did not see any significant slowdown. That's all what
I know now.
I also think we should use spin_is_contended() again.
What I am thinking now is whether it is possible to change
cond_resched_lock() to satisfy our need like:
cond_resched_lock(lock, spin_is_contended(lock)); // we want this
cond_resched_lock(lock, spin_needbreak(lock)); // same as current
cond_resched_lock(lock, false); // never check contention
Although I have checked all callers, it is not certain whether they do
not want to check lock contention when CONFIG_PREEMPT=no.
I will send an RFC patch to get comments, if possible.
Thanks,
Takuya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
