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/
