Re: [PATCH 00/20] mm: Preemptibility -v4

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 18:19 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Yanmin ran the last posting through the comprehensive Intel test farm
> > and didn't find any regressions.
> 
> Is there data somewhere that shows where this helps and how much?

Yanmin didn't publish any data, but the main point of the series is to
not take hundreds of nested spinlocks. Not regressing is a fine state.

In theory the preemptible mmu could end up doing less TLB invalidates
for large unmaps and thus gain some performance there.

--
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/