From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 02:59:25 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: Scaling problem with shmem_sb_info->stat_lock Message-ID: <20040728095925.GQ2334@holomorphy.com> References: <20040728022625.249c78da.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040728022625.249c78da.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Hugh Dickins , bcasavan@sgi.com, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hugh Dickins wrote: >> 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. On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:26:25AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > What's wrong with ? One issue with using it for the specific cases in question is that the maintenance of the statistics is entirely unnecessary for them. For the general case it may still make sense to do this. SGI will have to comment here, as the workloads I'm involved with are kernel intensive enough in other areas and generally run on small enough systems to have no visible issues in or around the areas described. -- 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