[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1383611954.2342.7.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 16:39:14 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, aswin@...com,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm,vdso: preallocate new vmas
Hi Andrew -
On Thu, 2013-10-17 at 17:50 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> Linus recently pointed out[1] some of the amount of unnecessary work
> being done with the mmap_sem held. This patchset is a very initial
> approach on reducing some of the contention on this lock, and moving
> work outside of the critical region.
>
> Patch 1 adds a simple helper function.
>
> Patch 2 moves out some trivial setup logic in mlock related calls.
>
> Patch 3 allows managing new vmas without requiring the mmap_sem for
> vdsos. While it's true that there are many other scenarios where
> this can be done, few are actually as straightforward as this in the
> sense that we *always* end up allocating memory anyways, so there's really
> no tradeoffs. For this reason I wanted to get this patch out in the open.
If you have no objections, could you pickup patches 1 and 2? I think
it's safe to say that patch 3 isn't worth any more discussion.
Thanks!
--
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