[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: (reiserfs) Re: More on 2.2.18pre2aa2
Considering there are a lot of people still using 2.0.x because they find it
more stable than the 2.2.x series, doesn't it make sense to give this
scalability to people who are already running SMP boxes on 2.2.x and who may
decide to use ReiserFS?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrea Arcangeli" <>

> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >BTW, there is a another optimization that could help reiserfs a lot
> >on SMP settings: do a unlock_kernel()/lock_kernel() around the user
> >copies. It is quite legal to do that (you have to handle sleeping
> >anyways in case of a page fault), and it allows CPUs to run in parallel
> >for long running copies.
> I'd prefer not to spend time to make 2.2.x to scale better in SMP, 2.4.x
> just fixed that problem by dropping the big lock in first place in the
> read/write paths :). The copy-user reschedule points were bugfixes
> instead.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.271 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site