On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 03:31:18PM +0800, He Zhe wrote:
>
>
> On 1/5/19 2:37 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:29:13PM +0800, zhe...@windriver.com wrote:
> >> It's not necessary to keep consistency between readers and writers of
> >> kmemleak_lock. RCU is more proper for t
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 03:31:18PM +0800, He Zhe wrote:
> On 1/5/19 2:37 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:29:13PM +0800, zhe...@windriver.com wrote:
> >> It's not necessary to keep consistency between readers and writers of
> >> kmemleak_lock. RCU is more proper for this ca
On 1/5/19 2:37 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:29:13PM +0800, zhe...@windriver.com wrote:
>> It's not necessary to keep consistency between readers and writers of
>> kmemleak_lock. RCU is more proper for this case. And in order to gain better
>> performance, we turn the r
On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 10:29:13PM +0800, zhe...@windriver.com wrote:
> It's not necessary to keep consistency between readers and writers of
> kmemleak_lock. RCU is more proper for this case. And in order to gain better
> performance, we turn the reader locks to RCU read locks and writer locks to
From: He Zhe
It's not necessary to keep consistency between readers and writers of
kmemleak_lock. RCU is more proper for this case. And in order to gain better
performance, we turn the reader locks to RCU read locks and writer locks to
normal spin locks.
"time echo scan > /sys/kernel/debug/kmeml
5 matches
Mail list logo