From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:03:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:03:49 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:34964 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:03:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:03:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20010925.150328.75780096.davem@redhat.com> To: andrea@suse.de Cc: marcelo@conectiva.com.br, torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Locking comment on shrink_caches() From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20010926000102.G8350@athlon.random> In-Reply-To: <20010925.131528.78383994.davem@redhat.com> <20010926000102.G8350@athlon.random> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.0 on Emacs 21.0 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Andrea Arcangeli Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:01:02 +0200 IMHO if we would hold the pagecache lock all the time while shrinking the cache, then we could kill the lru lock in first place. And actually in the pagecache locking patches, doing such a thing would be impossible :-) since each page needs to grab a different lock (because the hash chain is potentially different). Franks a lot, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com