Re: More latency regressions with 2.6.11-rc4-RT-V0.7.39-02

Lee Revell
2005-02-24T03:04:08Z

On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 13:41 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, it would be much better to optimize this away than just add a
> > scheduling point. It seems like we could do this lazily.
> >
>
> Oh? What do you mean by lazy? IMO it is sort of implemented lazily now.
> That is, we are too lazy to refcount page table pages in fastpaths, so
> that pushes a lot of work to unmap time. Not necessarily a bad trade-off,
> mind you. Just something I'm looking into.
>

I guess I was thinking we could be even more lazy, and somehow defer it
until after unmap time (in lieu of memory pressure that is). Actually
that's kind of what a lock break would do.

Lee