Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264348AbUDORDi (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:03:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264337AbUDORDi (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:03:38 -0400 Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.103]:36573 "EHLO e3.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264356AbUDORDh (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:03:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:14:51 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Hugh Dickins cc: Rajesh Venkatasubramanian , Andrea Arcangeli , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] anobjrmap 9 priority mjb tree Message-ID: <178970000.1082049291@flay> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 817 Lines: 19 >> > 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? I still think my list-of-lists patch fixes the original problem, and is simpler ... I'll try to get it updated, and sent out. M., - 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/