[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/9] mm: split page table lock
    On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > Hugh Dickins <> 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.

    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: 2005-10-24 05:15    [W:0.019 / U:59.640 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site