[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080103085525.GB10813@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:55:25 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Mike Travis <travis@....com>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 02/20] make the inode i_mmap_lock a reader/writer lock
* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> > Have you done anything more with allowing > 256 CPUS in this
> > spinlock patch? We've been testing with 1k cpus and to verify with
> > -mm kernel, we need to "unpatch" these spinlock changes.
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Actually I had it in my mind that 64 bit used single-byte locking like
> i386, so I didn't think I'd caused a regression there.
>
> I'll take a look at fixing that up now.
thanks - this is a serious showstopper for the ticket spinlock patch.
( which has otherwise been performing very well in x86.git so far - it
has passed a few thousand bootup tests on 64-bit and 32-bit as well,
so we are close to it being in a mergable state. Would be a pity to
lose it due to the 256 cpus limit. )
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists