From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: 2.5.69-mm1 From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20030506110907.GB9875@in.ibm.com> References: <20030504231650.75881288.akpm@digeo.com> <20030505210151.GO8978@holomorphy.com> <20030506110907.GB9875@in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1052222542.983.27.camel@rth.ninka.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: 06 May 2003 05:02:22 -0700 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: dipankar@in.ibm.com Cc: William Lee Irwin III , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 04:09, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > That brings me to the point - with the fget-speedup patch, we should > probably change ->file_lock back to an rwlock again. We now take this > lock only when fd table is shared and under such situation the rwlock > should help. Andrew, it that ok ? rwlocks believe it or not tend not to be superior over spinlocks, they actually promote cache line thrashing in the case they are actually being effective (>1 parallel reader) -- David S. Miller -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org