From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:38:30 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: [PATCH] low-latency zap_page_range() Message-ID: <20020829213830.GG888@holomorphy.com> References: <3D6E844C.4E756D10@zip.com.au> <1030653602.939.2677.camel@phantasy> <3D6E8B25.425263D5@zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: brief message Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D6E8B25.425263D5@zip.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Robert Love , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Robert Love wrote: >> unless we >> wanted to unconditionally drop the locks and let preempt just do the >> right thing and also reduce SMP lock contention in the SMP case. On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:59:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > That's an interesting point. page_table_lock is one of those locks > which is occasionally held for ages, and frequently held for a short > time. > I suspect that yes, voluntarily popping the lock during the long holdtimes > will allow other CPUs to get on with stuff, and will provide efficiency > increases. (It's a pretty lame way of doing that though). > But I don't recall seeing nasty page_table_lock spintimes on > anyone's lockmeter reports, so... You will. There are just bigger fish to fry at the moment. Cheers, Bill -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/