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.4.64.0701291013530.29254@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:15:54 -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 Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Ladder locking would end up:
> 
> lock A0
> lock B1
> unlock A0 -> a new operation can start
> lock C2
> unlock B1
> lock D5
> unlock C2
> ** we do stuff to D5
> unlock D5
> 

Instead of taking one lock we would need to take 4? Wont doing so cause 
significant locking overhead? We probably would want to run some 
benchmarks. Maybe disable the scheme for systems with a small number of 
processors?


-
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/