From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1760913AbZBLX6S@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1760913AbZBLX6S (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:58:18 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753214AbZBLX6A
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:58:00 -0500
Received: from fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.37]:59717 "EHLO
	fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752771AbZBLX57 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:57:59 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:56:40 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
       Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@tglx.de>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
       Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
       Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Carsten Emde <ce@ceag.ch>,
       Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] rt: res_counter fix, v2
Message-Id: <20090213085640.704caf34.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090212165833.GB6298@balbir.in.ibm.com>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902112332370.415@localhost.localdomain>
	<20090212005032.GA4788@nowhere>
	<20090212021257.GB4697@nowhere>
	<20090212101650.GA1096@elte.hu>
	<20090212102113.GA10031@elte.hu>
	<20090212194644.98d275cf.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
	<20090212112854.GD31613@elte.hu>
	<20090212165833.GB6298@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Organization: FUJITSU Co. LTD.
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.5.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32)
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 Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:28:33 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> [2009-02-12 12:28:54]:
> 
> > 
> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:21:13 +0100
> > > Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > The question is, are these local IRQ flags manipulations really needed
> > in this code, and if yes, why?
> 
> We needed the local IRQ flags, since these counters are updated from
> page fault context and from reclaim context with lru_lock held with
> IRQ's disabled. I've been thinking about replacing the spin lock with
> seq lock, but have not gotten to it yet.
> 
Hmm ?  I can't understand. Why we have to disable IRQ here again ?
And,
  - try_to_unmap() is called in shrink_page_list(),  there, no zone->lru_lock.
  - page fault path doesn't hold zone->lru_lock.

My concern is only shmem. But I think it doesn't call charge() within lock, actually.

Thanks,
-Kame