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
12 matches
Mail list logo
