Hi Matthew,
Thanks for reviewing this series.
On 12/01/2018 19:48, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:26:00PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> -static void __vma_rb_erase(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct rb_root *root)
>> +static void __vma_rb_erase(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
Hi Matthew,
Thanks for reviewing this series.
On 12/01/2018 19:48, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:26:00PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> -static void __vma_rb_erase(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct rb_root *root)
>> +static void __vma_rb_erase(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:26:00PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> -static void __vma_rb_erase(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct rb_root *root)
> +static void __vma_rb_erase(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> + struct rb_root *root = >mm_rb;
> /*
>* Note
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:26:00PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> -static void __vma_rb_erase(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct rb_root *root)
> +static void __vma_rb_erase(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> + struct rb_root *root = >mm_rb;
> /*
>* Note
This change is inspired by the Peter's proposal patch [1] which was
protecting the VMA using SRCU. Unfortunately, SRCU is not scaling well in
that particular case, and it is introducing major performance degradation
due to excessive scheduling operations.
To allow access to the mm_rb tree without
This change is inspired by the Peter's proposal patch [1] which was
protecting the VMA using SRCU. Unfortunately, SRCU is not scaling well in
that particular case, and it is introducing major performance degradation
due to excessive scheduling operations.
To allow access to the mm_rb tree without
6 matches
Mail list logo