From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760111AbYACGHk (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 01:07:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755515AbYACGHc (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 01:07:32 -0500 Received: from smtp103.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.213]:48834 "HELO smtp103.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752344AbYACGHb (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 01:07:31 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=BjOIs3BnWUhcKsxG8VUEUaz+EBWgZSd1iXZHHvpbjgCYHHpR7FKq44w5H4I5UWj6v7Bkg9vwy7rUJH3BSO5ianDVPSJ0xMfHPUWX7ZGcFC+7Gyr7AFG8hcN49XTOs0uU9mfDWtmCuFsAcsZDin4KQkfcAeRA6CvQI/gLM0G/VqQ= ; X-YMail-OSG: 7SiYuqEVM1lNTUtT0s3ZQpZXzAeQu654YfHSXVfcw.Kb8EVI_UoGKYL5mndpZs02rCgM.PViTw-- From: Nick Piggin To: Mike Travis Subject: Re: [patch 02/20] make the inode i_mmap_lock a reader/writer lock Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:07:14 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Christoph Lameter , Peter Zijlstra , Lee Schermerhorn , Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar References: <20071218211539.250334036@redhat.com> <200712201859.12934.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <477C1FB6.5050905@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <477C1FB6.5050905@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801031707.14607.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 03 January 2008 10:35, Mike Travis wrote: > Hi Nick, > > Have you done anything more with allowing > 256 CPUS in this spinlock > patch? We've been testing with 1k cpus and to verify with -mm kernel, > we need to "unpatch" these spinlock changes. > > Thanks, > Mike Hi Mike, Actually I had it in my mind that 64 bit used single-byte locking like i386, so I didn't think I'd caused a regression there. I'll take a look at fixing that up now. Thanks, Nick