Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Oct 2005 04:09:40 +0100 (BST) | From | Hugh Dickins <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 7/9] mm: split page table lock |
| |
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote: > > preprocessor compare that with NR_CPUS. But I don't think it's worth > > being user-configurable: for good testing of both split and unsplit > > configs, split now at 4 cpus, and perhaps change that to 8 later. > > I'll make it >= 2 for -mm.
The trouble with >= 2 is that it then leaves the unsplit page_table_lock path untested, since UP isn't using page_table_lock at all. While it's true that the unsplit page_table_lock path has had a long history of testing, it's not inconceivable that I could have screwed it up.
With the default at 4, I think we've got quite good coverage between those who configure NR_CPUS down to the 2 they actually have, and those who leave it at its default or actually have 4.
Hugh - 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/
| |