> prune_dcache() I can believe. But the report was about d_lookup(). So
> somebody is using bad profiling information, and that's dangerous.
sure - d_lookup() is definitely bogus.
> Also, the si_meminfo() etc stuff is just ridiculous. It's not a question
> of latency: it's a question of CPU usage. We need to just get rid of
> those functions instead of hacking around them - regardless of whether
> you add "reschedule" calls in them, they just eat too much CPU, plain
> and simple. Again, please don't treat the symptoms - I will not accept
> patches that just say "oh, this is crap, so let's reschedule a bit
> here". They need to be fixed properly or not at all.
i agree - I wanted to have something for 2.2 for people to test - i wanted
to cure symptoms first, we have way too many latency sources right now and
i first wanted to get something that can be tested. I think that the
uaccess.h changes are too intrusive as well - i'll rework these things.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/