[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2.5.69-mm1

To: dipankar@in.ibm.com
Subject: Re: 2.5.69-mm1
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Date: 06 May 2003 05:02:22 -0700
Cc: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,linux-mm@kvack.org
Fake-Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
In-Reply-To: <20030506110907.GB9875@in.ibm.com>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mm-archive@humbolt.geo.uu.nl
References: <20030504231650.75881288.akpm@digeo.com> <20030505210151.GO8978@holomorphy.com> <20030506110907.GB9875@in.ibm.com>
Sender: Rik van Riel <riel@nl.linux.org>

On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 04:09, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> That brings me to the point - with the fget-speedup patch, we should
> probably change ->file_lock back to an rwlock again. We now take this
> lock only when fd table is shared and under such situation the rwlock
> should help. Andrew, it that ok ?

rwlocks believe it or not tend not to be superior over spinlocks,
they actually promote cache line thrashing in the case they
are actually being effective (>1 parallel reader)

-- 
David S. Miller <davem@redhat.com>
--
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: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: 2.5.69-mm1
  - From: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>

References:
- 2.5.69-mm1
  - From: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
- Re: 2.5.69-mm1
  - From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
- Re: 2.5.69-mm1
  - From: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>

Prev by Date: Re: 2.5.69-mm1
Next by Date: 2.5.69-mm2
Prev by thread: Re: 2.5.69-mm1
Next by thread: Re: 2.5.69-mm1
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread