On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 02:32:35PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 18:27 +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Mar 2013, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > If this makes it more deterministic, and lower worse case latencies, > > > then it's definitely worth the price. > > > > Yes that would make it more deterministic. Maybe I should add an option > > to be able to compile the allocator without cpu partial page support? > > I agree that would be useful. Hello, Steven and Christoph. How about using spin_try_lock() in unfreeze_partials() and using spin_lock_contented() in get_partial_node() to reduce latency? IMHO, this doesn't make code more deterministic, but can maintain a benefit of cpu partial page with tolerable latency. Thanks. > > -- Steve > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
