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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <1198083218.5333.48.camel@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:53:38 -0500
From:	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lee.schermerhorn@...com
Subject: Re: [patch 02/20] make the inode i_mmap_lock a reader/writer lock

On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 11:31 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 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.

That would be worth testing with our problematic workloads...

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

That's fine with me.  They're out there is anyone is interested.  I'll
keep them up to date in my tree [and hope they don't conflict with split
lru and noreclaim patches too much] for occasional testing.

Lee

--
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/