On Wed, 14 May 2008, Robin Holt wrote:
>
> Would it be acceptable to always put a sleepable stall in even if the
> code path did not require the pages be unwritable prior to continuing?
> If we did that, I would be freed from having a pool of invalidate
> threads ready for XPMEM to use for that work. Maybe there is a better
> way, but the sleeping requirement we would have on the threads make most
> options seem unworkable.
I'm not understanding the question. If you can do you management outside
of the spinlocks, then you can obviously do whatever you want, including
sleping. It's changing the existing spinlocks to be sleepable that is not
acceptable, because it's such a performance problem.
Linus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
