Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750833AbWCVLMY (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:12:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750743AbWCVLMY (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:12:24 -0500 Received: from smtp108.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.218]:16227 "HELO smtp108.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750735AbWCVLMV (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:12:21 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=vu2QOb7ySCVWN1Nv5c+48ztz1UNs3k/jO3k0weultOY6XysPzzYV6ldHAIKq6rmRyu9v05SWGuixoXjk+J3+W4HogMHfXzeCU83oxeVq45ObaGMzeV5/OPeMdyO413lhBtKr57Uoae4FSMNr7vuGWz0g4VQoZqwiECysbKN3P4w= ; Message-ID: <44212338.3050309@yahoo.com.au> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:13:12 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Chen, Kenneth W" CC: "Li, Shaohua" , "'lkml'" , "'Andrew Morton'" , Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [PATCH] less tlb flush in unmap_vmas References: <200603220744.k2M7iBg05206@unix-os.sc.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <200603220744.k2M7iBg05206@unix-os.sc.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1243 Lines: 31 Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 11:30 PM > >>Well mmu_gather uses a per-cpu data structure and is non preemptible, >>which I guess is one of the main reasons why we have this preemption >>here. >> >>You're right that another good reason would be ptl lock contention, >>however I don't think that alleviating that problem alone would allow >>longer mmu_gather scheduling latencies, because the longest latency >>is still the mmu_gather <--> mmu_finish span. > > > OK, I think it would be beneficial to take a latency measurement again, > just to see how it perform now a day. The dynamics might changed. > Well I wouldn't argue against further investigation or fine tuning the present code, however also remember that the way of unconditionally finishing the mmu_gather that the patch is aimed to prevent never actually lowered ptl hold times itself. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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/