linux-kernel - Re: [patch 02/20] make the inode i_mmap

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: <20071219113107.5301f9f0@cuia.boston.redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:31:07 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lee.shermerhorn@...com
Subject: Re: [patch 02/20] make the inode i_mmap_lock a reader/writer lock

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:52:09 -0500
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com> wrote:

> I keep these patches up to date for testing.  I don't have conclusive
> evidence whether they alleviate or exacerbate the problem nor by how
> much.  

When the queued locking from Ingo's x86 tree hits mainline,
I suspect that spinlocks may end up behaving a lot nicer.

Should I drop the rwlock patches from my tree for now and
focus on just the page reclaim stuff?

-- 
All Rights Reversed
--
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/