On Thu, 8 May 2008 00:22:05 +0200 Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, the simple solution is to just make up a whole new upper-level lock, > > and get that lock *first*. You can then take all the multiple locks at a > > lower level in any order you damn well please. > > Unfortunately the lock you're talking about would be: > > static spinlock_t global_lock = ... > > There's no way to make it more granular. > > So every time before taking any ->i_mmap_lock _and_ any anon_vma->lock > we'd need to take that extremely wide spinlock first (and even worse, > later it would become a rwsem when XPMEM is selected making the VM > even slower than it already becomes when XPMEM support is selected at > compile time). Nope. We only need to take the global lock before taking *two or more* of the per-vma locks. I really wish I'd thought of that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
