On 05/10/2012 11:39 AM, rajman mekaco wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Rik van Riel<riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 05/10/2012 09:34 AM, rajman mekaco wrote:
Any updates on this ?
There is still no usecase to demonstrate a problem, so no real
justification to merge the patch. Coming up with such a usecase
is up to the submitter of the patch.
Maybe you didn't read my last email:
If 2 different user-mode processes executing on 2 CPUs under 2 different
users want to access the same shared memory through the
shmctl(SHM_LOCK) / shmget(SHM_HUGETLB) / usr_shm_lock
primitives, they could compete/spin even though their user_structs
are different.
Can you please correct me if I am missing some crucial point of understanding ?
Mlock is a very very expensive operation.
Updating the mlock statistics is a very cheap operation.
Does this spinlock ever show up contention wise?
--
All rights reversed
--
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>