On Thu, 8 May 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> So because the bitflag can't prevent taking the same lock twice on two
> different vmas in the same mm, we still can't remove the sorting
Andrea.
Take five minutes. Take a deep breadth. And *think* about actually reading
what I wrote.
The bitflag *can* prevent taking the same lock twice. It just needs to be
in the right place.
Let me quote it for you:
> So the flag wouldn't be one of the VM_xyzzy flags, and would require
> adding a new field to "struct anon_vma()"
IOW, just make it be in that anon_vma (and the address_space). No sorting
required.
> I think it's more interesting to put a cap on the number of vmas to
> min(1024,max_map_count). The sort time on an 8k array runs in constant
> time.
Shut up already. It's not constant time just because you can cap the
overhead. We're not in a university, and we care about performance, not
your made-up big-O notation.
Linus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
