From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D110A8D0040 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2011 04:48:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: prevent concurrent unmap_mapping_range() on the same inode From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:48:16 +0100 Message-ID: <1299059296.2428.13483.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Linus Torvalds , Miklos Szeredi , akpm@linux-foundation.org, hch@infradead.org, gurudas.pai@oracle.com, lkml20101129@newton.leun.net, rjw@sisk.pl, florian@mickler.org, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, maciej.rutecki@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 15:12 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote: >=20 > In his [2/8] mm: remove i_mmap_mutex lockbreak patch, Peter says > "shouldn't hold up reclaim more than lock_page() would". But (apart > from a write error case) we always use trylock_page() in reclaim, we > never dare hold it up on a lock_page().=20 D'0h! I so missed that, ok fixed up the changelog. > So page reclaim would get > held up on truncation more than at present - though he's right to > point out that truncation will usually be freeing pages much faster. *phew* :-) -- 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