[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Locking comment on shrink_caches()

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, David S. Miller wrote:

> From: Marcelo Tosatti <>
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:40:23 -0300 (BRT)
> We can simply lock the pagecachelock and the pagemap_lru_lock at the
> beginning of the cleaning function. page_launder() use to do that.
> Thats why I asked Andrea if there was long hold times by shrink_caches().
> Ok, I see.
> I do think it's silly to hold the pagecache_lock during pure scanning
> activities of shrink_caches().

It may well be, but I would like to see some lockmeter results which show
that _shrink_cache()_ itself is a problem. :)

> It is known that pagecache_lock is the biggest scalability issue on
> large SMP systems, and thus the page cache locking patches Ingo and
> myself did.

Btw, is that one going into 2.5 for sure? (the per-address-space lock).

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.091 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site