On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 01:10:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ok, this sounds sane.
>
> What should we do about this? How does this patch look to people?
>
> (Totally untested, and I'm not sure we should even do that whole
> "oldmm->mm_users" test, but I'm throwing it out here for discussion, in
> case it matters for performance. The second D$ flush should obviously be
> unnecessary for the common unthreaded case, which is why none of this has
> mattered historically, I think).
>
> Comments? We need ARM, MIPS, sparc and S390 at the very least to sign off
> on this, and somebody to write a nice explanation for the changelog (and
> preferably do this through -mm too).
As a minimal solution your patch would work for MIPS but performance would be
suboptimal.
With my D-cache alias series applied the flush_cache_mm() in dup_mmap()
becomes entirely redundant. When I delete the call (not part of my patchset)
it means 12% faster fork. But I'm not proposing this for 2.6.19.
Note this does not make the flush_cache_mm() on process termination
redundant ...
Ralf
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
