Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263018AbUDLS6x (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:58:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263027AbUDLS6w (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:58:52 -0400 Received: from intolerance.mr.itd.umich.edu ([141.211.14.78]:55226 "EHLO intolerance.mr.itd.umich.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263018AbUDLS6u (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:58:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:58:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Rajesh Venkatasubramanian X-X-Sender: vrajesh@rust.engin.umich.edu To: Hugh Dickins cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] anobjrmap 9 priority mjb tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1075 Lines: 26 > Unless we see a plausible way forward on your SDET numbers, I > think it casts this project in doubt - but even so I do need We can try a few fancy locking tricks. But, we don't know whether such tricks will help. > i_shared_lock changed to i_shared_sem to allow that cond_resched_lock > in unmap_vmas to solve vmtruncate latency problems? With i_mmap and > i_mmap_shared as lists, isn't it easy to insert a dummy marker vma > and drop the lock if we need resched? Resuming from marker after. > > But, sadly, I doubt that can be done with the prio tree: Rajesh? Yeap. With prio_tree it is tricky. We already have the marker for prio_tree, i.e., prio_tree_iter. But, when you drop a lock new tree nodes may be added to the prio_tree, and the marker does not provide any consistent meaning after the node additions. Rajesh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/