From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [patch 02/20] make the inode i_mmap_lock a reader/writer lock From: Lee Schermerhorn In-Reply-To: <20071219113107.5301f9f0@cuia.boston.redhat.com> References: <20071218211539.250334036@redhat.com> <20071218211548.784184591@redhat.com> <200712191148.06506.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <1198079529.5333.12.camel@localhost> <20071219113107.5301f9f0@cuia.boston.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:53:38 -0500 Message-Id: <1198083218.5333.48.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Nick Piggin , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lee.schermerhorn@hp.com List-ID: On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 11:31 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:52:09 -0500 > Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > > I keep these patches up to date for testing. I don't have conclusive > > evidence whether they alleviate or exacerbate the problem nor by how > > much. > > When the queued locking from Ingo's x86 tree hits mainline, > I suspect that spinlocks may end up behaving a lot nicer. That would be worth testing with our problematic workloads... > > Should I drop the rwlock patches from my tree for now and > focus on just the page reclaim stuff? That's fine with me. They're out there is anyone is interested. I'll keep them up to date in my tree [and hope they don't conflict with split lru and noreclaim patches too much] for occasional testing. Lee -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org