linux-kernel - Re: [patch 13/14] fs: icache split IO and LRU lists

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: <20101022000028.GE3270@amd>
Date:	Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:00:28 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc:	npiggin@...nel.dk, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 13/14] fs: icache split IO and LRU lists

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:28:42AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, npiggin@...nel.dk wrote:
> 
> > Split inode reclaim and writeback lists in preparation to scale them up
> > (per-bdi locking for i_io and per-zone locking for i_lru)
> 
> Why per zone and not per node? Is there any chance of having lru lists for
> ZONE_NORMAL and ZONE_DMA?

I guess I see that as coupling a bit too much with the MM. We know that
zones are the unit of allocation and reclaim, but I don't think we need
to care about which zones we need to care about, or the node:zone
relationship.


--
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/