Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264347AbUDOQzp (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:55:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264352AbUDOQzo (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:55:44 -0400 Received: from bay-bridge.veritas.com ([143.127.3.10]:9256 "EHLO MTVMIME02.enterprise.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264347AbUDOQzm (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:55:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:55:34 +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: <41380000.1082043649@[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: 729 Lines: 18 On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > > > Any ideas how we might handle latency from vmtruncate (and > > try_to_unmap) if using prio_tree with i_shared_lock spinlock? > > I've been thinking about that. My rough plan is to go wild, naked and lockless. > If we arrange things in the correct order, new entries onto the list would It's quite easy if there's a list - though I'm not that eager to go wild, naked and lockless with you! But what if there's a prio_tree? 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/