[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] low-latency zap_page_range()
Robert Love wrote:
>> unless we
>> wanted to unconditionally drop the locks and let preempt just do the
>> right thing and also reduce SMP lock contention in the SMP case.

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:59:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> That's an interesting point. page_table_lock is one of those locks
> which is occasionally held for ages, and frequently held for a short
> time.
> I suspect that yes, voluntarily popping the lock during the long holdtimes
> will allow other CPUs to get on with stuff, and will provide efficiency
> increases. (It's a pretty lame way of doing that though).
> But I don't recall seeing nasty page_table_lock spintimes on
> anyone's lockmeter reports, so...

You will. There are just bigger fish to fry at the moment.

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: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.059 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site