Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: prevent concurrent unmap_mapping_range() on the same inode | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:48:16 +0100 |
| |
On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 15:12 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > In his [2/8] mm: remove i_mmap_mutex lockbreak patch, Peter says > "shouldn't hold up reclaim more than lock_page() would". But (apart > from a write error case) we always use trylock_page() in reclaim, we > never dare hold it up on a lock_page().
D'0h! I so missed that, ok fixed up the changelog.
> So page reclaim would get > held up on truncation more than at present - though he's right to > point out that truncation will usually be freeing pages much faster.
*phew* :-)
| |