[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwoEMOweMaOjFk9+H04mFXnwGk7y6n86T2ZbF_CZOkKEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:33:00 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm, vmscan: Batch removal of mappings under a single
lock during reclaim
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> So, once upon a time, in a galaxy far away,.. I did a concurrent
> pagecache patch set that replaced the tree_lock with a per page bit-
> spinlock and fine grained locking in the radix tree.
I'd love to see the patch for that. I'd be a bit worried about extra
locking in the trivial cases (ie multi-level locking when we now take
just the single mapping lock), but if there is some smart reason why
that doesn't happen, then..
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists