On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 11:45:03 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue 09-08-11 18:32:16, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 11:31:50 +0200 > > Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > What do you think about the half backed patch bellow? I didn't manage to > > > test it yet but I guess it should help. I hate asymmetry of drain_lock > > > locking (it is acquired somewhere else than it is released which is > > > not). I will think about a nicer way how to do it. > > > Maybe I should also split the rcu part in a separate patch. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > I'd like to revert 8521fc50 first and consider total design change > > rather than ad-hoc fix. > > Agreed. Revert should go into 3.0 stable as well. Although the global > mutex is buggy we have that behavior for a long time without any reports. > We should address it but it can wait for 3.2. > What "buggy" means here ? "problematic" or "cause OOps ?" > > Personally, I don't like to have spin-lock in per-cpu area. > > spinlock is not that different from what we already have with the bit > lock. maybe. The best is lockless style...but pointer in percpu cache is problem.. Thanks, -Kame -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>