> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:31:23 +0900
> Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:26:24 +0530, Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > *
nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp> [2010-03-10 10:43:09]:
>
> > I made a patch(attached) using both local_irq_disable/enable and local_irq_save/restore.
> > local_irq_save/restore is used only in mem_cgroup_update_file_mapped.
> >
> > And I attached a histogram graph of 30 times kernel build in root cgroup for each.
> >
> > before_root: no irq operation(original)
> > after_root: local_irq_disable/enable for all
> > after2_root: local_irq_save/restore for all
> > after3_root: mixed version(attached)
> >
> > hmm, there seems to be a tendency that before < after < after3 < after2 ?
> > Should I replace save/restore version to mixed version ?
> >
>
> IMHO, starting from after2_root version is the easist.
> If there is a chance to call lock/unlock page_cgroup can be called in
> interrupt context, we _have to_ disable IRQ, anyway.
> And if we have to do this, I prefer migration_lock rather than this mixture.
>