[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080130222035.GX26420@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:20:35 -0600
From: Robin Holt <holt@....com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>,
Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
Izik Eidus <izike@...ranet.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
daniel.blueman@...drics.com, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:19:28AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Jack Steiner wrote:
>
> > Moving to a different lock solves the problem.
>
> Well it gets us back to the issue why we removed the lock. As Robin said
> before: If its global then we can have a huge number of tasks contending
> for the lock on startup of a process with a large number of ranks. The
> reason to go to mmap_sem was that it was placed in the mm_struct and so we
> would just have a couple of contentions per mm_struct.
>
> I'll be looking for some other way to do this.
I think Andrea's original concept of the lock in the mmu_notifier_head
structure was the best. I agree with him that it should be a spinlock
instead of the rw_lock.
Thanks,
Robin
--
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