Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:58:44 -0400 (EDT) | From | Rajesh Venkatasubramanian <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] anobjrmap 9 priority mjb tree |
| |
> Unless we see a plausible way forward on your SDET numbers, I > think it casts this project in doubt - but even so I do need
We can try a few fancy locking tricks. But, we don't know whether such tricks will help.
> i_shared_lock changed to i_shared_sem to allow that cond_resched_lock > in unmap_vmas to solve vmtruncate latency problems? With i_mmap and > i_mmap_shared as lists, isn't it easy to insert a dummy marker vma > and drop the lock if we need resched? Resuming from marker after. > > But, sadly, I doubt that can be done with the prio tree: Rajesh?
Yeap. With prio_tree it is tricky. We already have the marker for prio_tree, i.e., prio_tree_iter. But, when you drop a lock new tree nodes may be added to the prio_tree, and the marker does not provide any consistent meaning after the node additions.
Rajesh
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |