Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:57:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:57:30 -0500 Received: from zero.tech9.net ([209.61.188.187]:21522 "EHLO zero.tech9.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:57:20 -0500 Subject: Re: latency & real-time-ness. From: Robert Love To: Rik van Riel Cc: Dieter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?N=FCtzel?= , Linux Kernel List , Ingo Molnar , Andrea Arcangeli In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.2 Date: 04 Mar 2002 18:56:57 -0500 Message-Id: <1015286218.1083.21.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 18:48, Rik van Riel wrote: > > If rmap finds its way into 2.5, I and others have some ideas about ways > > to optimize the algorithms to reduce lock hold time and benefit from > > preemption. For example, Daniel Phillips has some ideas wrt > > zap_page_range. > > Feel free to help resolve these issues before rmap code gets > merged. I'd prefer to be able to introduce rmap in small bits > and pieces without breaking anything. The above was just an optimization ... rmap and preempt work fine together. What Andrew Morton, I, and others intend to do for 2.5 is work on the algorithms and locking issues to work on latency issues cleanly. But I'll surely work on the issues wrt rmap ;) Robert Love - 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/