Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262080AbUDOK0Q (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2004 06:26:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262257AbUDOK0Q (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2004 06:26:16 -0400 Received: from bay-bridge.veritas.com ([143.127.3.10]:32621 "EHLO MTVMIME02.enterprise.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262080AbUDOK0P (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2004 06:26:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:26:09 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@localhost.localdomain To: "Martin J. Bligh" cc: Rajesh Venkatasubramanian , Andrea Arcangeli , , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] anobjrmap 9 priority mjb tree In-Reply-To: <35840000.1082010202@[10.10.2.4]> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 602 Lines: 17 On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > FYI, even without prio-tree, I get a 12% boost from converting i_shared_sem > into a spinlock. I'll try doing the same on top of prio-tree next. Good news, though not a surprise. Any ideas how we might handle latency from vmtruncate (and try_to_unmap) if using prio_tree with i_shared_lock spinlock? Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/