![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Andrew Morton wrote: > Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote: > >>Are there cases where the lockless page cache performs worse than the >>current one? > > > Yeah - when human beings try to understand and maintain it. Have any tried yet? ;) I won't deny it is complex (because I don't like when I make the same point and people go on to take great trouble to convince me how simple it is!). But I hope it isn't _too_ bad. It is basically a dozen line function at the core, and that gets used to implement find_get_page, find_lock_page. Their semantics remain the same, so that's where the line is drawn (plus minor things, like an addition for reclaim's remove-from-pagecache protocol). IMO the rcu radix tree is probably the most complex bit... but that pales in comparison to things like our prio tree, or RCU trie. > > The usual tradeoffs apply ;) Definitely. It isn't fun if you just take the patch and merge it. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-04-27 08:16 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||