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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1170096978.10987.39.camel@lappy>
Date:	Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:56:17 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
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, 2007-01-29 at 10:15 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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?

Yep.

> Wont doing so cause significant locking overhead?
> We probably would want to run some benchmarks. 

Right, I was hoping the extra locking overhead would be more than
compensated by the reduction in lock contention time. But testing is
indeed in order.

> Maybe disable the scheme for systems with a small number of 
> processors?

CONFIG_RADIX_TREE_CONCURRENT does exactly this.

-
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/