From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A09B6B0044 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:15:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail7.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id nBGBFZud004970 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:15:35 +0900 Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6810E45DE50 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:15:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4666945DE4E for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:15:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E6641DB803C for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:15:35 +0900 (JST) Received: from m108.s.css.fujitsu.com (m108.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.108]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1451DB803A for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:15:31 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:12:18 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [mm][RFC][PATCH 0/11] mm accessor updates. Message-Id: <20091216201218.42ff7f05.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20091216104951.GD15031@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> <20091216193109.778b881b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20091216104951.GD15031@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 11:49:51 +0100 Andi Kleen wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 07:31:09PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > 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.) > > I suspect you would just need to change them again then. > Do you have alternative recommendation rather than wrapping all accesses by special functions ? 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