Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 25 Sep 2001 15:28:58 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: Locking comment on shrink_caches() | From | "David S. Miller" <> |
| |
From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:16:43 -0400
> Please note that the problem is lock cachelines in dirty exclusive > state, not a "lock held for long time" issue. Ahh, that's a cpu bug -- one my athlons don't suffer from. Your Athlons may handle exclusive cache line acquisition more efficiently (due to memory subsystem performance) but it still does cost something.
True, and that is why I would like to see more of the research that justifies these changes, as well as comparisons with alternate techniques before any of these patches make it into the base tree. Even before that, we need to clean up the code first. As an aside, I actually think the per-hashchain version of the pagecache locking is cleaner conceptually. The reason is that it makes it more clear that we are locking the "identity of page X" instead of "the page cache".
Franks a lot, David S. Miller davem@redhat.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/
|  |