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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.025 / U:64.636 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site