From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:38:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:38:48 -0400 Received: from nat-pool-meridian.redhat.com ([199.183.24.200]:12693 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 21 May 2001 09:38:31 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 14:36:04 +0100 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" To: Rik van Riel Cc: Mike Galbraith , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Ingo Oeser , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10 Message-ID: <20010521143604.C8080@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Sun, May 20, 2001 at 07:04:31AM -0300 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 07:04:31AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sun, 20 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > Looking at the locking and trying to think SMP (grunt) though, I > > don't like the thought of taking two locks for each page until > > > 100%. The data in that block is toast anyway. A big hairy SMP > > box has to feel reclaim_page(). (they probably feel the zone lock > > too.. probably would like to allocate blocks) > > Indeed, but this is a separate problem. Doing per-CPU private > (small, 8-32 page?) free lists is probably a good idea Ingo already implemented that for Tux2. Cheers, Stephen