Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:38:30 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [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.
Cheers, Bill - 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/
|  |