[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110218024603.2089221d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 02:46:03 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Yanmin Zhang <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] mm: Remove i_mmap_mutex lockbreak
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:05:22 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> Hugh says:
> "The only significant loser, I think, would be page reclaim (when
> concurrent with truncation): could spin for a long time waiting for
> the i_mmap_mutex it expects would soon be dropped? "
>
> Counter points:
> - cpu contention makes the spin stop (need_resched())
> - zap pages should be freeing pages at a higher rate than reclaim
> ever can
> - shouldn't hold up reclaim more than lock_page() would
>
> I think the simplification of the truncate code is definately worth
> it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Maybe I have to improve batched-uncharge in memcg, whose work depends
on ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE....but the zap routine seems cleaner.
Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
--
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