On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:10:43AM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:44:00PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:59 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800,
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:10:43AM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:44:00PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:59 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:44:00PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:59 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 17:44 -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:59 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:59 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:59 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Yuanhan Liu yuanhan@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 17:44 -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:59 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:44:00PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:59 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Btw., another _really_ interesting comparison would be
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Yuanhan Liu yuanhan@linux.intel.com wrote:
Btw., another _really_ interesting comparison
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 11:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> >
> > Should copy Andrea on this. I talked with him during KS, and there are
> > no current in-tree users who are doing such sleeping; however there
> > are prospective users for
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> >
> > > > Btw., another _really_ interesting comparison would be against
> > > > the latest rwsem patches. Mind doing such a comparison?
> > >
>
(11/1/13 3:54 AM), Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> Patch 1 turns locking the anon_vma's root to locking itself to let it be
> a per anon_vma lock, which would reduce contentions.
>
> In the same time, lock range becomes quite small then, which is bascially
> a call of anon_vma_interval_tree_insert(). Patch
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>
> Should copy Andrea on this. I talked with him during KS, and there are
> no current in-tree users who are doing such sleeping; however there
> are prospective users for networking (RDMA) or GPU stuff who want to
> use this to let
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>
>> Andrea's last input from this kind of conversion is that it cannot be
>> done (at least yet): https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/30/53
>
> No, none of the invalidate_page users really
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> Andrea's last input from this kind of conversion is that it cannot be
> done (at least yet): https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/30/53
No, none of the invalidate_page users really need to sleep. If doing
this makes some people not do stupid
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 09:01 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Yuanhan Liu wrote:
>
> > Patch 1 turns locking the anon_vma's root to locking itself to let it be
> > a per anon_vma lock, which would reduce contentions.
> >
> > In the same time, lock range becomes quite small then, which is bascially
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Yuanhan Liu wrote:
>
> > > Btw., another _really_ interesting comparison would be against
> > > the latest rwsem patches. Mind doing such a comparison?
> >
> > Sure. Where can I get it? Are they on some git tree?
>
> I've
* Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > Btw., another _really_ interesting comparison would be against
> > the latest rwsem patches. Mind doing such a comparison?
>
> Sure. Where can I get it? Are they on some git tree?
I've Cc:-ed Tim Chen who might be able to point you to the latest
version.
The last
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:01:36AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Yuanhan Liu wrote:
>
> > Patch 1 turns locking the anon_vma's root to locking itself to let it be
> > a per anon_vma lock, which would reduce contentions.
> >
> > In the same time, lock range becomes quite small then, which is
* Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> Patch 1 turns locking the anon_vma's root to locking itself to let it be
> a per anon_vma lock, which would reduce contentions.
>
> In the same time, lock range becomes quite small then, which is bascially
> a call of anon_vma_interval_tree_insert(). Patch 2 turn rwsem
Patch 1 turns locking the anon_vma's root to locking itself to let it be
a per anon_vma lock, which would reduce contentions.
In the same time, lock range becomes quite small then, which is bascially
a call of anon_vma_interval_tree_insert(). Patch 2 turn rwsem to rwlock_t.
It's a patch made from
Patch 1 turns locking the anon_vma's root to locking itself to let it be
a per anon_vma lock, which would reduce contentions.
In the same time, lock range becomes quite small then, which is bascially
a call of anon_vma_interval_tree_insert(). Patch 2 turn rwsem to rwlock_t.
It's a patch made from
* Yuanhan Liu yuanhan@linux.intel.com wrote:
Patch 1 turns locking the anon_vma's root to locking itself to let it be
a per anon_vma lock, which would reduce contentions.
In the same time, lock range becomes quite small then, which is bascially
a call of
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:01:36AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Yuanhan Liu yuanhan@linux.intel.com wrote:
Patch 1 turns locking the anon_vma's root to locking itself to let it be
a per anon_vma lock, which would reduce contentions.
In the same time, lock range becomes quite small
* Yuanhan Liu yuanhan@linux.intel.com wrote:
Btw., another _really_ interesting comparison would be against
the latest rwsem patches. Mind doing such a comparison?
Sure. Where can I get it? Are they on some git tree?
I've Cc:-ed Tim Chen who might be able to point you to the latest
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Yuanhan Liu yuanhan@linux.intel.com wrote:
Btw., another _really_ interesting comparison would be against
the latest rwsem patches. Mind doing such a comparison?
Sure. Where can I get it? Are they on some git tree?
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 09:01 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Yuanhan Liu yuanhan@linux.intel.com wrote:
Patch 1 turns locking the anon_vma's root to locking itself to let it be
a per anon_vma lock, which would reduce contentions.
In the same time, lock range becomes quite small then,
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com wrote:
Andrea's last input from this kind of conversion is that it cannot be
done (at least yet): https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/30/53
No, none of the invalidate_page users really need to sleep. If doing
this makes some people not
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Davidlohr Bueso davidl...@hp.com wrote:
Andrea's last input from this kind of conversion is that it cannot be
done (at least yet): https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/30/53
No, none
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Michel Lespinasse wal...@google.com wrote:
Should copy Andrea on this. I talked with him during KS, and there are
no current in-tree users who are doing such sleeping; however there
are prospective users for networking (RDMA) or GPU stuff who want to
use this
(11/1/13 3:54 AM), Yuanhan Liu wrote:
Patch 1 turns locking the anon_vma's root to locking itself to let it be
a per anon_vma lock, which would reduce contentions.
In the same time, lock range becomes quite small then, which is bascially
a call of anon_vma_interval_tree_insert(). Patch 2
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Yuanhan Liu yuanhan@linux.intel.com wrote:
Btw., another _really_ interesting comparison would be against
the latest rwsem patches. Mind doing such a
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 11:55 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Michel Lespinasse wal...@google.com wrote:
Should copy Andrea on this. I talked with him during KS, and there are
no current in-tree users who are doing such sleeping; however there
are prospective
34 matches
Mail list logo
