On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Anton Starikov wrote: > > I think we got a winner! > > Problem seems to be fixed. > > Just for record, I used next patches: > > 59c33fa7791e9948ba467c2b83e307a0d087ab49 > 5d0b7235d83eefdafda300656e97d368afcafc9a > 1838ef1d782f7527e6defe87e180598622d2d071 > 4126faf0ab7417fbc6eb99fb0fd407e01e9e9dfe > bafaecd11df15ad5b1e598adc7736afcd38ee13d > 0d1622d7f526311d87d7da2ee7dd14b73e45d3fc Ok. If you have performance numbers for before/after these patches for your actual workload, I'd suggest posting them to stable@xxxxxxxxxx, and maybe those rwsem fixes will get back-ported. The patches are pretty small, and should be fairly safe. So they are certainly stable material. Linus -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>