From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx110.postini.com [74.125.245.110]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EA3006B0044 for ; Thu, 3 May 2012 17:20:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FA2EA4A.6040703@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 16:27:54 -0400 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mlock: split the shmlock_user_lock spinlock into per user_struct spinlock References: <1336066477-3964-1-git-send-email-rajman.mekaco@gmail.com> <4FA2C946.60006@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4FA2C946.60006@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: rajman mekaco Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Paul Gortmaker , Andrew Morton , KOSAKI Motohiro , Minchan Kim , Christoph Lameter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On 05/03/2012 02:07 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: > On 05/03/2012 01:34 PM, rajman mekaco wrote: >> The user_shm_lock and user_shm_unlock functions use a single global >> spinlock for protecting the user->locked_shm. >> >> This is an overhead for multiple CPUs calling this code even if they >> are having different user_struct. >> >> Remove the global shmlock_user_lock and introduce and use a new >> spinlock inside of the user_struct structure. >> >> Signed-off-by: rajman mekaco > > Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel Hold this ... while the patch is correct, Peter raised a valid concern about its usefulness, which should be sorted out first. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org