Re: [PATCH 05/12] mm: trylock_page

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Nick Piggin
Date: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 - 1:44 am

On Sunday 30 September 2007 01:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

It does kind of make sense to have it there (because you want the page
to be locked iff it gets inserted into pagecache). And wherever you lock
the page, we'll still want an init_page_locked to be able to lock it while we
are the only owner of it, for the same performance reason.



Hmm, OK. There are a couple of page lock deadlocks there that wouldn't
be picked up, but the page lock vs mmap_sem one probably should be.



Should be pretty well identical to the page lock. I'll cc you on the patch
to do this equivalent API conversion, if you'd like.



Yeah.


Seems OK.
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH 05/12] mm: trylock_page, Nick Piggin, (Thu Sep 27, 8:11 pm)
[PATCH 05/12] mm: trylock_page, Peter Zijlstra, (Fri Sep 28, 12:42 am)
Re: [PATCH 05/12] mm: trylock_page, Peter Zijlstra, (Sat Sep 29, 8:01 am)
Re: [PATCH 05/12] mm: trylock_page, Nick Piggin, (Tue Oct 2, 1:44 am)