Re: [PATCH 00/20] mm: Preemptibility -v4

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

 



On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 18:19 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Yanmin ran the last posting through the comprehensive Intel test farm
> > and didn't find any regressions.
> 
> Is there data somewhere that shows where this helps and how much?

Yanmin didn't publish any data, but the main point of the series is to
not take hundreds of nested spinlocks. Not regressing is a fine state.

In theory the preemptible mmu could end up doing less TLB invalidates
for large unmaps and thus gain some performance there.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux