Re: [PATCH] less tlb flush in unmap_vmas

Nick Piggin
2006-03-22T11:12:24Z

Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 11:30 PM
>

>>Well mmu_gather uses a per-cpu data structure and is non preemptible,
>>which I guess is one of the main reasons why we have this preemption
>>here.
>>
>>You're right that another good reason would be ptl lock contention,
>>however I don't think that alleviating that problem alone would allow
>>longer mmu_gather scheduling latencies, because the longest latency
>>is still the mmu_gather <--> mmu_finish span.
>
>
> OK, I think it would be beneficial to take a latency measurement again,
> just to see how it perform now a day. The dynamics might changed.
>

Well I wouldn't argue against further investigation or fine tuning
the present code, however also remember that the way of unconditionally
finishing the mmu_gather that the patch is aimed to prevent never
actually lowered ptl hold times itself.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com