From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] concurrent pagecache (against 2.6.19-rt) From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: References: <20061207161800.426936000@chello.nl> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:24:16 +0100 Message-Id: <1165865056.32332.60.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Nick Piggin List-ID: On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 11:03 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Based on Nick's lockless (read-side) pagecache patches (included in the series) > > here an attempt to make the write side concurrent. > > On first glance it looks quite interesting and very innovative. Removing > the tree_lock completely also reduces cache line usage. The page struct > cacheline is already references in most contexts. Thanks, I'm just curious how bouncy the fine grained radix tree locks will be. > > Comment away ;-) > > Could you post Nick's patches from your email addres and add a From Nick > line in them? Its a bit confusing to have a patchset with different > originating email addresses. Or does this come about by the evil header > mangling of the list processor? Maybe you need to use >From ?? Nah that was on purpose, you can grab the patches from here: http://programming.kicks-ass.net/kernel-patches/concurrent-pagecache-rt/ if you care, or I can post them again. -- 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: email@kvack.org