From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:22:19 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: Scaling problem with shmem_sb_info->stat_lock Message-ID: <20040713222219.GL21066@holomorphy.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Brent Casavant , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:41:34PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > I think Jack's right: there's no visible mount point for df or du, > the files come ready-unlinked, nobody has an fd. > Though wli's per-cpu idea was sensible enough, converting to that > didn't appeal to me very much. We only have a limited amount of > per-cpu space, I think, but an indefinite number of tmpfs mounts. > Might be reasonable to allow per-cpu for 4 or them (the internal > one which is troubling you, /dev/shm, /tmp and one other). Tiresome. > Jack's perception appeals to me much more > (but, like you, I do wonder if it'll really work out in practice). I ignored the specific usage case and looked only at the generic one. Though I actually had in mind just shoving an array of cachelines in the per-sb structure, it apparently is not even useful to maintain for the case in question, so why bother?. -- wli -- 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