On Wednesday 15 April 2009 18:22:32 Nick Piggin wrote: > On Wednesday 15 April 2009 18:05:54 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > Hi > > > > > On Wednesday 15 April 2009 00:32:52 Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 12:26:34AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > Andrea: I didn't veto that set_bit change of yours as such. I just > > > > > > > > I know you didn't ;) > > > > > > > > > noted there could be more atomic operations. Actually I would > > > > > welcome more comparison between our two approaches, but they seem > > > > > > > > Agree about the welcome of comparison, it'd be nice to measure it the > > > > enterprise workloads that showed the gup_fast gain in the first place. > > > > > > I think we should be able to ask IBM to run some tests, provided > > > they still have machines available to do so. Although I don't want > > > to waste their time so we need to have something that has got past > > > initial code review and has a chance of being merged. > > > > > > If we get that far, then I can ask them to run tests definitely. > > > > Oh, it seem very charming idea. > > Nick, I hope to help your patch's rollup. It makes good comparision, I think. > > Is there my doable thing? > > Well, I guess review and testing. There are few possibilities for > reducing the cases where we have to de-cow (or increasing the > cases where we can WP-on-fork), which I'd like to experiment with, > but I don't know how much it will help... Oh, I forgot, it needs to be updated for hugepages as well, I'd say. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
