On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 08:01:46PM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 02:34:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 09:51:21PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On 07/15/2013 03:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > > >On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:16:44PM -0700, Davidlohr
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 02:34:24PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 09:51:21PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 07/15/2013 03:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > >On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:16:44PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >
> > >>>Reading the existing comment, this change lo
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 09:51:21PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 03:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> >On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:16:44PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> >>>Reading the existing comment, this change looks very suspicious to me.
> >>>A per-vma mutex is just not going to pr
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 05:12:31PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 16:08 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:24:32 +1000 David Gibson
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have previously proposed a correct method of improving scalability,
> > > although it doesn't elim
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 09:51:21PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 03:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> >On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:16:44PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> >>>Reading the existing comment, this change looks very suspicious to me.
> >>>A per-vma mutex is just not going to pr
On 07/15/2013 03:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:16:44PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
Reading the existing comment, this change looks very suspicious to me.
A per-vma mutex is just not going to provide the necessary exclusion, is
it? (But I recall next to nothing about
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 16:08 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:24:32 +1000 David Gibson
> wrote:
>
> > I have previously proposed a correct method of improving scalability,
> > although it doesn't eliminate the lock. That's to use a set of hashed
> > mutexes.
>
> Yep - hashin
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:24:32 +1000 David Gibson
wrote:
> I have previously proposed a correct method of improving scalability,
> although it doesn't eliminate the lock. That's to use a set of hashed
> mutexes.
Yep - hashing the mutexes is an obvious and nicely localized way of
improving this.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:16:44PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 17:54 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Adding the essential David Gibson to the Cc list.
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> >
> > > The hugetlb_instantiation_mutex serializes hugepage allocat
This seems incorrect. hugetlb_instantiation_mutex protects chains of struct
file_region
in inode->i_mapping->private_list (VM_MAYSHARE) or vma_resv_map(vma)->regions
(!VM_MAYSHARE)
These chains obviously can be shared between several vmas, so per-vma lock
cannot protect them.
Davidlohr Bueso w
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 17:54 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Adding the essential David Gibson to the Cc list.
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> > The hugetlb_instantiation_mutex serializes hugepage allocation and
> > instantiation
> > in the page directory entry. It was found that
Adding the essential David Gibson to the Cc list.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> The hugetlb_instantiation_mutex serializes hugepage allocation and
> instantiation
> in the page directory entry. It was found that this mutex can become quite
> contended
> during the early phases o
The hugetlb_instantiation_mutex serializes hugepage allocation and instantiation
in the page directory entry. It was found that this mutex can become quite
contended
during the early phases of large databases which make use of huge pages - for
instance
startup and initial runs. One clear example
13 matches
Mail list logo
