[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:0.089 / U:0.768 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site