Re: [PATCH] less tlb flush in unmap_vmas

[Nick Piggin]

Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 11:30 PM

> > Well mmu_gather uses a per-cpu data structure and is non preemptible,
> > which I guess is one of the main reasons why we have this preemption
> > here.
> >
> > You're right that another good reason would be ptl lock contention,
> > however I don't think that alleviating that problem alone would allow
> > longer mmu_gather scheduling latencies, because the longest latency
> > is still the mmu_gather <--> mmu_finish span.
>
>
> OK, I think it would be beneficial to take a latency measurement again,
> just to see how it perform now a day.  The dynamics might changed.

Well I wouldn't argue against further investigation or fine tuning
the present code, however also remember that the way of unconditionally
finishing the mmu_gather that the patch is aimed to prevent never
actually lowered ptl hold times itself.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/