Re: [PATCH] - Reduce TLB flushing during process migration

[David Mosberger]

>>>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 10:48:00 -0500, Jack Steiner <steiner@xxxxxxx> said:

  Jack> As far as the tlb_migrate patch is concerned, the change to
  Jack> the way machvec noop functions are implemented is mostly
  Jack> unrelated to the tlb_migrate patch. We can apply the patches
  Jack> in 2 ways:

  Jack> - change machvec noop functions
  Jack> - rework the tlb_migrate patch on top of that change

  Jack> OR

  Jack> - apply the tlb_migrate patch in it's current form
  Jack> - change the machvec noop functions including the tlb_migrate noop

  Jack> Either works. I'm partial to #2 (easier) but will do either....

I'd be ok with #2 except that if we do it that way, I bet that we'll
forget about changing the machvec noop functions... ;-)

  Jack> Note: calling a noop function after an explicit process
  Jack> migration is untidy but is not a measurable performance
  Jack> problem. I agree, however, that the noop function should be
  Jack> improved. At some point in the future, other noop functions
  Jack> may be added that ARE performance sensitive. It is good to
  Jack> have the correct infrastructure implemented.

Precisely.

	--david
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/