>>>>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:01:19 -0600, Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com> said: Jack> Does this analysis look correct?? Yup. Jack> Here is the patch that I am currently testing: Jack> --- /usr/tmp/TmpDir.19957-0/linux/mm/memory.c_1.79 Wed Nov 12 13:56:25 2003 Jack> +++ linux/mm/memory.c Wed Nov 12 12:57:25 2003 Jack> @@ -574,9 +574,10 @@ Jack> if ((long)zap_bytes > 0) Jack> continue; Jack> if (need_resched()) { Jack> + int fullmm = (*tlbp)->fullmm; Jack> tlb_finish_mmu(*tlbp, tlb_start, start); Jack> cond_resched_lock(&mm->page_table_lock); Jack> - *tlbp = tlb_gather_mmu(mm, 0); Jack> + *tlbp = tlb_gather_mmu(mm, fullmm); Jack> tlb_start_valid = 0; Jack> } Jack> zap_bytes = ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE; I think the patch will work fine, but it's not very clean, because it bypasses the TLB-flush API and directly accesses implementation-specific internals. Perhaps it would be better to pass a "fullmm" flag to unmap_vmas(). Andrew? --david - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Wed Nov 12 15:50:24 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:20 EST