[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: -mm merge plans for 2.6.20
Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Andrew Morton writes:

>> There's no reason to merge this yet.
> We want to use it in some powerpc arch code. Currently we use a
> per-cpu array of spinlocks, and this patch would let us get rid of
> that array.

I'd like to get another patch in here before going upstream if possible.
It is not a correctness fix, but it is a bit of a rework.

I also wouldn't mind getting the readahead path, if not the full
pagecache readside, out from under tree_lock in -mm kernels to exercise
the radix-tree concurrency a bit more.

It's just been painfully slow, recently because of these more important
buffered write vs deadlock and pagefault vs invalidate problems that
I've been working on. I don't feel I can load up -mm with too much
unrelated stuff that messes with mm/pagecache internals.

I guess the per-cpu spinlocks are pretty reasonable for scalability,
and you are mainly looking to eliminate the lock/unlock cost in your
interrupt path?


SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends

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: 2006-12-05 06:53    [W:0.197 / U:3.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site