Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:00:47 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | 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.
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 we can leave it as-is for now. - 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/
|  |