On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:22:52PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan....@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > > or whether the lock hold times could be reduced drastically
> >
> > I also found one, but it doesn't sound like the one will
> > reduce lock hold times drastically:
> >
> > vma_lock_anon_vma() seems covered too much code at
> > expand_up/downwards.
> >
> > Well, again, it's quite a tiny optimization for reducing the
> > coverage.
>
> The fundamental problem is I think that there's a single anon
> vma lock for the whole workload, right?
Yes.
>
> Is that really fundamentally needed, could that be spread out
> perhaps?
I'm digging into this.
Thanks.
--yliu
>
> ( But first we want to see how much of the regression we can fix
> in an equivalent-locking-patterns fashion - improving locking
> is a separate matter. )
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
