[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMYGaxrYex7ALY4_5R_jTz-xftu6zVD3-SmUdVDO-Gy4Vom7gA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 08:40:39 +0530
From: rajman mekaco <rajman.mekaco@...il.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mlock: split the shmlock_user_lock spinlock into per
user_struct spinlock
>>
>> Maybe you didn't read my last email:
>> If 2 different user-mode processes executing on 2 CPUs under 2 different
>> users want to access the same shared memory through the
>> shmctl(SHM_LOCK) / shmget(SHM_HUGETLB) / usr_shm_lock
>> primitives, they could compete/spin even though their user_structs
>> are different.
>>
>> Can you please correct me if I am missing some crucial point of
>> understanding ?
>
>
> Mlock is a very very expensive operation.
>
> Updating the mlock statistics is a very cheap operation.
>
> Does this spinlock ever show up contention wise?
I just tested for working and not contention. :)
I was just going by correctness of concept.
But I understand what you say and I will try to actually test contention
for this in the coming days.
>
> --
> All rights reversed
--
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