[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] anobjrmap 9 priority mjb tree

> 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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.064 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site