| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:05:27 +1100 From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk> To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 13/14] fs: icache split IO and LRU lists On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:00:28AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > 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. But let's not worry about that in the context of this patch set. This is just a minimal lock breaking, and the scalability steps can go in any direction after this. I think zone based reclaim seems to be the way to go, but we could discuss the point in a patch that implements it, on top of this series. Thanks, Nick -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists