On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:19:00 +1000, Greg Ungerer <gerg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The wrong combination comes from lazy vunmapping which was introduced > > in 2.6.28 cycle. Maybe we can add new API (non-lazy version of > > vfree()) to vmalloc.c to implement module_free(), but I suppose > > fallbacking to local_flush_tlb_all() in local_flush_tlb_kernel_range() > > is enough(). > > Is there any performance impact on falling back to that? > > The flushing due to lazy vunmapping didn't seem to happen > often in the tests I was running. I think the wrong combination can happen only when some modules were unloaded, so performance impact would not be serious even if exists. --- Atsushi Nemoto
