On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 11:53 -0500, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 11:31 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:52:09 -0500
> > Lee Schermerhorn <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I keep these patches up to date for testing. I don't have conclusive
> > > evidence whether they alleviate or exacerbate the problem nor by how
> > > much.
> >
> > When the queued locking from Ingo's x86 tree hits mainline,
> > I suspect that spinlocks may end up behaving a lot nicer.
>
> That would be worth testing with our problematic workloads...
>
> >
> > Should I drop the rwlock patches from my tree for now and
> > focus on just the page reclaim stuff?
>
> That's fine with me. They're out there is anyone is interested. I'll
> keep them up to date in my tree [and hope they don't conflict with split
> lru and noreclaim patches too much] for occasional testing.
Of course, someone would need to implement ticket locks for ia64 -
preferably without the 256 cpu limit.
Nick, growing spinlock_t to 64 bits would yield space for 64k cpus,
right? I'm guessing that would be enough for a while, even for SGI.
--
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]
