On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 04:20:35PM -0600, Robin Holt wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:19:28AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Jack Steiner wrote: > > > > > Moving to a different lock solves the problem. > > > > Well it gets us back to the issue why we removed the lock. As Robin said > > before: If its global then we can have a huge number of tasks contending > > for the lock on startup of a process with a large number of ranks. The > > reason to go to mmap_sem was that it was placed in the mm_struct and so we > > would just have a couple of contentions per mm_struct. > > > > I'll be looking for some other way to do this. > > I think Andrea's original concept of the lock in the mmu_notifier_head > structure was the best. I agree with him that it should be a spinlock > instead of the rw_lock.
BTW, I don't see the scalability concern with huge number of tasks: the lock is still in the mm, down_write(mm->mmap_sem); oneinstruction; up_write(mm->mmap_sem) is always going to scale worse than spin_lock(mm->somethingelse); oneinstruction; spin_unlock(mm->somethinglese). Furthermore if we go this route and we don't relay on implicit serialization of all the mmu notifier users against exit_mmap (i.e. the mmu notifier user must agree to stop calling mmu_notifier_register on a mm after the last mmput) the autodisarming feature will likely have to be removed or it can't possibly be safe to run mmu_notifier_unregister while mmu_notifier_release runs. With the auto-disarming feature, there is no way to safely know if mmu_notifier_unregister has to be called or not. I'm ok with removing the auto-disarming feature and to have as self-contained-as-possible locking. Then mmu_notifier_release can just become the invalidate_all_after and invalidate_all, invalidate_all_before. -- 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/