Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:58:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:58:27 -0400 Received: from vasquez.zip.com.au ([203.12.97.41]:17678 "EHLO vasquez.zip.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:58:26 -0400 Message-ID: <3D6E8B7F.8D5D20D8@zip.com.au> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:00:47 -0700 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.19-rc3 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Love CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] low-latency zap_page_range() References: <3D6E844C.4E756D10@zip.com.au> <1030653602.939.2677.camel@phantasy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 897 Lines: 22 Robert Love wrote: > > ... > unless we > wanted to unconditionally drop the locks and let preempt just do the > right thing and also reduce SMP lock contention in the SMP case. That's an interesting point. page_table_lock is one of those locks which is occasionally held for ages, and frequently held for a short time. I suspect that yes, voluntarily popping the lock during the long holdtimes will allow other CPUs to get on with stuff, and will provide efficiency increases. (It's a pretty lame way of doing that though). But I don't recall seeing nasty page_table_lock spintimes on anyone's lockmeter reports, so we can leave it as-is for now. - 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/