Re: PATCH: rewrite of invalidate_inode_pages

From: Trond Myklebust (trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no)
Date: Thu May 11 2000 - 18:17:42 EST


>>>>> " " == Juan J Quintela <quintela@fi.udc.es> writes:

> Then you want only invalidate the non_locked pages: do you

That's right. This patch looks much more appropriate.

> + while (count == ITERATIONS) {
> + spin_lock(&pagecache_lock);
> + spin_lock(&pagemap_lru_lock);
> + head = &inode->i_mapping->pages;
> + curr = head->next;
> + count = 0;
> +
> + while ((curr != head) && (count++ < ITERATIONS)) {

Just one question: Isn't it better to do it all in 1 iteration through
the loop rather than doing it in batches of 100 pages?
You can argue that you're freeing up the spinlocks for the duration of
the loop_and_test, but is that really going to make a huge difference
to SMP performance?

Cheers,
  Trond

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 15 2000 - 21:00:19 EST