On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 09:09:31 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:02:46AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Linus Torvalds > > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > I'll go back and try to see why the page flag contention patch didn't > > > get applied. > > > > Ahh, a combination of warring patches by Nick and PeterZ, and worry > > about the page flag bits. > > I think Nick actually had a patch freeing up a pageflag, although Hugh > had a comment on that. Yeah I think he basically acked it. It had a small compound debug false positive but I think it's okay. I'm just testing it again. > That said, I'm not a huge fan of his waiters patch, I'm still not sure > why he wants to write another whole wait loop, but whatever. Whichever > you prefer I suppose. Ah, I was waiting for some feedback, thanks. Well I wanted to do it that way to keep the manipulation of the new bit under the same lock as the waitqueue, so as not to introduce new memory orderings vs testing waitqueue_active. Thanks, Nick -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>