[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090108144541.GA496@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:45:41 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
> Sure, it probably is a non issue, but I'm afraid that non issues of today
> might become issues of tomorrow. Where does it say that we can never put a
> task struct in a movable zone.
Task structs are not movable, so they by definition do not belong
in movable zones.
> memory local to it, and pinned tasks to that CPU in that memory. Then
> there can be cases where we remove the CPU and memory together.
If you did that you would need to redesign so much of the kernel,
changing the mutex code too would be the smallest of your worries.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
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