lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] low-latency zap_page_range()
From
Date
On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 17:00, 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.

Since latency is a direct function of lock held times in the preemptible
kernel, and I am seeing disgusting zap_page_range() latencies, the lock
is held a long time.

So we know it is held forever and a day... but is there contention?

> 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.

I do not recall seeing this either and I have not done my own tests.

Personally, I would love to rip out the "cond_resched_lock()" and just
do

spin_unlock();
spin_lock();

and be done with it. This gives automatic preemption support and the
SMP benefit. Preemption being an "automatic" consequence of improved
locking was always my selling point (albeit, this is a gross example of
improving the locking, but it gets the job done).

But, the current implementation was more palatable to you and Linus when
I first posted this, and that counts for something.

Robert Love

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.057 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site