From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 18:25:10 +0100 (BST) From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove_inode_page rewrite. In-Reply-To: <20000510111035.A685@loth.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Steve Dodd Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 10 May 2000, Steve Dodd wrote: > Now that invalidate_inode_page isn't calling sync_page, there seems to be > no reason to drop and retake the spinlock, I agree. *nod* > > + head = &inode->i_mapping->pages; > That shouldn't be necessary - nobody is likely to change the address of > inode->i_mapping->pages under us :) I spotted that, but wasn't entirely sure that the pagecache_lock was enough to ensure this. With the line above removed also, this means that invalidate_inode_pages becomes a lot faster as we only pass through the list once, so maybe holding the spinlock for the whole function isn't such a big deal. Even if the race I thought was there doesn't exist, this could be worth adding for a worthwhile performance increase. I'll do some performance tests in the next day or so. regards, -- Dave. -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/