On 03/04/2018 02:11, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>
>> 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
On 03/04/2018 02:11, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>
>> 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
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> 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
On 14/03/2018 09:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 06:59:47PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> 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
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 06:59:47PM +0100, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> 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
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
