From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/14] inode: move to per-sb LRU locks Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:21:44 -0400 Message-ID: <20110711192144.GA23723@infradead.org> References: <1310098486-6453-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1310098486-6453-9-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org To: Dave Chinner Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1310098486-6453-9-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:14:40PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner > > With the inode LRUs moving to per-sb structures, there is no longer > a need for a global inode_lru_lock. The locking can be made more > fine-grained by moving to a per-sb LRU lock, isolating the LRU > operations of different filesytsems completely from each other. Btw, any reason this is not done for dcache_lru_lock? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org