Re: [PATCH 08/41] mm: introduce CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed 11-01-23 09:04:41, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 8:44 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed 11-01-23 08:28:49, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Anyhow. Sounds like the overhead of the current design is small enough
> > > to remove CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK and let it depend only on architecture
> > > support?
> >
> > Yes. Further optimizations can be done on top. Let's not over optimize
> > at this stage.
> 
> Sure, I won't optimize any further.
> Just to expand on your question. Original design would be problematic
> for embedded systems like Android. It notoriously has a high number of
> VMAs due to anonymous VMAs being named, which prevents them from
> merging.

What is the usual number of VMAs in that environment?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux