Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:37:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:36:10 -0500 Received: from host154.207-175-42.redhat.com ([207.175.42.154]:24653 "EHLO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:34:51 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:34:50 -0500 From: Benjamin LaHaise To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Momchil Velikov , linux-kernel , "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Scalable page cache Message-ID: <20011126133450.C13955@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20011126131641.A13955@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from mingo@elte.hu on Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 09:29:39PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 09:29:39PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > this is a misunderstanding of the problem. The reason why the > pagecache_lock is a performance problem is *not* contention, the reason is > *not* the length of chains, or any other reason you listed. The problem is > SMP cacheline invalidation costs, due to using the same cacheline from > multiple CPUs. Thus the spreading out of locking gives good SMP cacheline > usage properties. Please reply to the rest of the message. Perhaps that item is a misunderstanding, but the rest of it is applicable across the board. -ben - 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/