Re: 2.5.67-mm3

[Andrew Morton]

William Lee Irwin III <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 09:55:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Sort-of.  The code is doing two things.
> > a) Make sure that all the relevant pte's are established in the correct
> >    state so we don't take a fault while holding the subsequent atomic kmap.
> >    This is just an optimisation.  If we _do_ take the fault while holding
> >    an atomic kmap, we fall back to sleeping kmap, and do the whole copy
> >    again.  It almost never happens.
> 
> This is the easy part; we're basically just prefaulting.

btw, this may sound like a lot of futzing about, but the other day I
timed four concurrent instances of

	dd if=/dev/zero of=$i bs=1 count=1M

on the four-way.  2.5 ran eight times faster than 2.4.  2.4's kmap_lock
contention was astonishing.