Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:14:51 -0700 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] anobjrmap 9 priority mjb tree |
| |
>> > Any ideas how we might handle latency from vmtruncate (and >> > try_to_unmap) if using prio_tree with i_shared_lock spinlock? >> >> I've been thinking about that. My rough plan is to go wild, naked and lockless. >> If we arrange things in the correct order, new entries onto the list would > > It's quite easy if there's a list - though I'm not that eager to go wild, > naked and lockless with you! But what if there's a prio_tree?
I still think my list-of-lists patch fixes the original problem, and is simpler ... I'll try to get it updated, and sent out.
M.,
- 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/
| |