From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 09:56:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 08 of 11] anon-vma-rwsem In-Reply-To: <20080514162223.GZ9878@sgi.com> Message-ID: References: <6b384bb988786aa78ef0.1210170958@duo.random> <20080508003838.GA9878@sgi.com> <200805132206.47655.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20080513153238.GL19717@sgi.com> <20080514041122.GE24516@wotan.suse.de> <20080514112625.GY9878@sgi.com> <20080514162223.GZ9878@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Robin Holt Cc: Nick Piggin , Nick Piggin , Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Jack Steiner , Peter Zijlstra , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Kanoj Sarcar , Roland Dreier , Steve Wise , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity , linux-mm@kvack.org, general@lists.openfabrics.org, Hugh Dickins , Rusty Russell , Anthony Liguori , Chris Wright , Marcelo Tosatti , Eric Dumazet , "Paul E. McKenney" List-ID: On Wed, 14 May 2008, Robin Holt wrote: > > Would it be acceptable to always put a sleepable stall in even if the > code path did not require the pages be unwritable prior to continuing? > If we did that, I would be freed from having a pool of invalidate > threads ready for XPMEM to use for that work. Maybe there is a better > way, but the sleeping requirement we would have on the threads make most > options seem unworkable. I'm not understanding the question. If you can do you management outside of the spinlocks, then you can obviously do whatever you want, including sleping. It's changing the existing spinlocks to be sleepable that is not acceptable, because it's such a performance problem. Linus -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org