[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] releasing kernel lock during copy_from/to_user
    Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > If you'll measure something let me know the numbers. Also let me know if
    > 500 bytes is too low according to you.
    I've measured your original version.
    (I sent you that mail a few minutes ago)
    500 bytes sounds reasonable.

    I'll test (release if > x bytes) tonight//tomorrow.

    The main reason why I would prefer adding release_kernel_lock() outside
    uaccess.h is the stability:
    If we change uaccess.h, then this affects every obscure device driver,
    if we change filemap.c & tcp.c, then we achive 90 % if the speed gain
    with a far lower change to uncover some rare bugs.
    AND: since most obscure device drivers copy only a few bytes,
    the compare > 500 is wasted.

    OTHO, I wrote a patch which calls 'schedule_timeout()' during
    copy_??_user(), and the computer didn't crash immediately, but I
    got 1 deadlock after a few minutes.
    After I installed a deadlock-detection, the computer was stable...

    I'll install that patch again and perform a longer stress test.

    > >Could you please forward me the patch vs. 2.2.9?
    > Which one? buffer or unlocking?
    The unlocking patch. Comparing 2.2.9 & 2.2.9 with a small
    modification should provide more accurate benchmarks.


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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.019 / U:7.064 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site