Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:02:29 -0300 (BRT) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: Locking comment on shrink_caches() |
| |
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br> > 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 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/
|  |