On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 23:04 +0530, rajman mekaco wrote: > The user_shm_lock and user_shm_unlock functions use a single global > spinlock for protecting the user->locked_shm. Are you very sure its only protecting user state? This changelog doesn't convince me you've gone through everything and found it good. > This is an overhead for multiple CPUs calling this code even if they > are having different user_struct. > > Remove the global shmlock_user_lock and introduce and use a new > spinlock inside of the user_struct structure. While I don't immediately see anything wrong with it, I doubt its useful. What workload run with enough users that this makes a difference one way or another? -- 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