linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/14] Concurrent Page Cache

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701290918260.28330@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jan 2007 09:20:25 -0800 (PST)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] Concurrent Page Cache

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> With Nick leading the way to getting rid of the read side of the tree_lock,
> this work continues by breaking the write side of said lock.

Could we get the read side in separately from the write side? I think I 
get the read side but the write side still looks scary to me and 
introduces new ways of locking. Ladder locking?

> Aside from breaking MTD this version of the concurrent page cache seems
> rock solid on my dual core x86_64 box.

What exactly is the MTD doing and how does it break?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/