On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 22:18 +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 01:22:14PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > > i.e. no global locking, but we've accepted the occassional off-by-one > > error (even though splitting of hugepages isn't by any means lightning > > fast and the overhead of atomic ops would be negligible). > > Agreed losing an increment is not a problem, but in very large systems > it will become a bottleneck. It's not super urgent, but I think it > needs to become a per-cpu counter sooner than later (not needed > immediately but I would appreciate an incremental patch soon to > address that). Seems like something that would be fairly trivial with the existing count_vm_event() infrastructure. Any reason not to use that? I'll be happy to tack a patch on to my series. -- Dave -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>