Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch 1/7] cpusets: add dirty map to struct address_space | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:38:17 +0100 |
| |
On Tue, 2008-10-28 at 18:13 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, David Rientjes wrote: > > > Yeah, if we don't serialize with tree_lock then we'll need to protect the > > attachment of mapping->dirty_nodes with a new spinlock in struct > > address_space (and only for configs where MAX_NUMNODES > BITS_PER_LONG). > > That locking overhead is negligible when mapping->dirty_nodes is non-NULL > > since there's no requirement to protect the setting of the node in the > > nodemask. > > > > Are your concurrent pagecache patches in the latest mmotm? If so, I can > > rebase this entire patchset off that. > > We're still taking mapping->tree_lock in both __set_page_dirty() and > __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() in today's mmotm. > > When tree_lock is removed with your patchset, we can add a spinlock to > protect mapping->dirty_nodes when MAX_NUMNODES > BITS_PER_LONG. > > Would you like to fold this patch into your series (which assumes we're > not taking mapping->tree_lock in either of the two callers above)?
Thanks!, I was working on cleaning up the patches to submit again soonish.
| |