On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 07:37:24PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Well, if you can re-create the performance numbers (Ralf - can you send
> the full series with the final "remove the now unnecessary flush" to
> Davem?), that will make deciding things easier, I think.
>
> I suspect sparc, mips and arm are the main architectures where virtually
> indexed caching really matters enough for this to be an issue at all.
What I was using for my fork benchmark was basically the series as posted
in this thread + the quick hack patch below.
I'll dig up some numbers for the posted patchset and will send them later.
Ralf
diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
index 29ebb30..c83d226 100644
--- a/kernel/fork.c
+++ b/kernel/fork.c
@@ -202,7 +202,6 @@ static inline int dup_mmap(struct mm_str
struct mempolicy *pol;
down_write(&oldmm->mmap_sem);
- flush_cache_mm(oldmm);
/*
* Not linked in yet - no deadlock potential:
*/
-
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]
