From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752961Ab1AXOYJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jan 2011 09:24:09 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:56781 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751571Ab1AXOYH convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jan 2011 09:24:07 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/21] mm: Preemptibility -v6 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Andrew Morton , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , David Miller , Nick Piggin , Martin Schwidefsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrea Arcangeli In-Reply-To: <1295873131.28776.431.camel@laptop> References: <20101126143843.801484792@chello.nl> <1295457039.28776.137.camel@laptop> <1295873131.28776.431.camel@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:24:44 +0100 Message-ID: <1295879084.28776.432.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 13:45 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > The only significant loser, I think, > > would be page reclaim (when concurrent with truncation): could spin for a > > long time waiting for the i_mmap_mutex it expects would soon be dropped? Well it won't spin (much) but mostly go to sleep if it really takes very long, but then, could it really take much longer than say a lock_page() when reclaim hits a page under IO?