On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:12:59 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Remove the first obstackle towards a fully preemptible mmu_gather. > > The current scheme assumes mmu_gather is always done with preemption > disabled and uses per-cpu storage for the page batches. Change this to > try and allocate a page for batching and in case of failure, use a > small on-stack array to make some progress. > > Preemptible mmu_gather is desired in general and usable once > i_mmap_lock becomes a mutex. Doing it before the mutex conversion > saves us from having to rework the code by moving the mmu_gather > bits inside the pte_lock. > > Also avoid flushing the tlb batches from under the pte lock, > this is useful even without the i_mmap_lock conversion as it > significantly reduces pte lock hold times. There doesn't seem much point in reviewing this closely, as a lot of it gets tossed away later in the series.. > free_pages_and_swap_cache(tlb->pages, tlb->nr); It seems inappropriate that this code uses free_page[s]_and_swap_cache(). It should go direct to put_page() and release_pages()? Please review this code's implicit decision to pass "cold==0" into release_pages(). > -static inline void tlb_remove_page(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct page *page) > +static inline int __tlb_remove_page(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct page *page) I wonder if all the inlining which remains in this code is needed and desirable. -- 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>