[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpFGmxUUL2Wk5qdOsDzC1mX1t2wgbLwi7-giryR18c1CTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 16:43:39 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org,
liam.howlett@...cle.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, mhocko@...e.com,
vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org, mjguzik@...il.com, oliver.sang@...el.com,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, david@...hat.com, peterx@...hat.com,
oleg@...hat.com, paulmck@...nel.org, brauner@...nel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
hdanton@...a.com, hughd@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com, jannh@...gle.com,
shakeel.butt@...ux.dev, souravpanda@...gle.com, pasha.tatashin@...een.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] move per-vma lock into vm_area_struct
On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 4:03 PM Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2024, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>
> >I'm not really trying to claim performance gains here. I just want to
> >make sure there are no regressions.
>
> You might also fine tune the atomics with acquire/release standard locking
> semantics, you will probably see better numbers in Android than what you
> currently have in patch 3 with full barriers - and not particularly risky
> as callers expect that behaviour already.
Ack. Will try that. Thanks!
>
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists