[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: kernel_lock() profiling results

To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: kernel_lock() profiling results
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 02:45:20 +0200 (CEST)
cc: masp0008@stud.uni-sb.de, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com>
In-Reply-To: <14156.18924.10333.781178@dukat.scot.redhat.com>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org

On Wed, 26 May 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:

>save/restore of lock_depth for a new, self-unlocking copy_*_user, but
>right now the droplock diffs still do the right thing the simple way.

I wouldn't call it the "right thing". It's also not simpler according to
me since to make sure that the unlock_kernel is really dropping the
kernel_flag spinlock you must check all entry paths and verify that
lock_depth is 0 at such time.

Andrea Arcangeli

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm my@address'
in the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/

References:
- Re: kernel_lock() profiling results
  - From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Q: PAGE_CACHE_SIZE?
Next by Date: Re: [PATCHES]
Prev by thread: Re: kernel_lock() profiling results
Next by thread: [PATCH] Support for modules that use swap
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread