On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 22:59 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I'm to blame for that - sorry. It didn't occur to me that I was
> moving any signficant amount of work (on mms with many vmas) into the
> section with preemption disabled. Actually, the mm->page_table_lock
> is _not_ held there any more; but preemption is still disabled while
> using the per-cpu mmu_gathers.
>
> I wish you'd found it at -rc1 time. It's not something that can
> be properly corrected in a hurry. The proper fix is to rework the
> tlb_gather_mmu stuff, so it can be done without preemption disabled.
> It's already a serious limitation in unmap_vmas, with CONFIG_PREEMPT's
> ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE spoiling throughput with far too many TLB flushes.
>
> On my list to work on; but the TLB always needs great care, and this
> goes down into architectural divergences, with truncation of a mapped
> file adding further awkward constraints. I imagine 2.6.16-rc1 is only
> a couple of weeks away, so it's unlikely to be fixed in 2.6.16 either.
>
Hugh,
Is this believed to be fixed in 2.6.16-rc1?
Lee
-
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]
