lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    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.

    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.022 / U:29.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site