From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A61426B0062 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:34:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id nBGAYDJh021002 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:34:13 +0900 Received: from smail (m5 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D17745DE51 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:34:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.95]) by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E10C45DE52 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:34:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49D221DB8043 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:34:13 +0900 (JST) Received: from m106.s.css.fujitsu.com (m106.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.106]) by s5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id F28BA1DB8038 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:34:12 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:31:09 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [mm][RFC][PATCH 0/11] mm accessor updates. Message-Id: <20091216193109.778b881b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20091216102806.GC15031@basil.fritz.box> References: <20091216120011.3eecfe79.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091216101107.GA15031@basil.fritz.box> <20091216191312.f4655dac.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091216102806.GC15031@basil.fritz.box> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , cl@linux-foundation.org, "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "mingo@elte.hu" , minchan.kim@gmail.com List-ID: On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:28:06 +0100 Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Also the patches didn't fare too well in testing unfortunately. > > > > > > I suspect we'll rather need multiple locks split per address > > > space range. > > > > This set doesn't include any changes of the logic. Just replace all mmap_sem. > > I think this is good start point (for introducing another logic etc..) > > The problem is that for range locking simple wrapping the locks > in macros is not enough. You need more changes. > maybe. but removing scatterred mmap_sem from codes is the first thing to do. I think this removing itself will take 3 month or a half year. (So, I didn't remove mmap_sem and leave it as it is.) The problem of range locking is more than mmap_sem, anyway. I don't think it's possible easily. But ok, if no one welcome this, I stop this. Thanks, -Kame -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org