From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:31:07 -0500 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [patch 02/20] make the inode i_mmap_lock a reader/writer lock Message-ID: <20071219113107.5301f9f0@cuia.boston.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1198079529.5333.12.camel@localhost> References: <20071218211539.250334036@redhat.com> <20071218211548.784184591@redhat.com> <200712191148.06506.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <1198079529.5333.12.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: Nick Piggin , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lee.shermerhorn@hp.com List-ID: On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:52:09 -0500 Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > I keep these patches up to date for testing. I don't have conclusive > evidence whether they alleviate or exacerbate the problem nor by how > much. When the queued locking from Ingo's x86 tree hits mainline, I suspect that spinlocks may end up behaving a lot nicer. Should I drop the rwlock patches from my tree for now and focus on just the page reclaim stuff? -- All Rights Reversed -- 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