On Tue 05-12-17 15:56:18, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:49:48 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > It also seems that there is no general agreement in the patch. Andrew,
> > do you plan to keep it?
>
> It's in wait-and-see mode.
OK, I will remove m32r from my compile test battery.
On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:49:48 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 29-11-17 09:17:34, Waiman Long wrote:
> > The list_lru_del() function removes the given item from the LRU list.
> > The operation looks simple, but it involves writing into the cachelines
> > of the two neighboring list entries in ord
On Wed 29-11-17 09:17:34, Waiman Long wrote:
> The list_lru_del() function removes the given item from the LRU list.
> The operation looks simple, but it involves writing into the cachelines
> of the two neighboring list entries in order to get the deletion done.
> That can take a while if the cach
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 09:14:52AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 11/30/2017 07:09 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:47:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:54:04 -0500 Waiman Long wrote:
> >>
> And, from that perspective, the racy shortcut in the p
On 11/30/2017 07:09 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:47:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:54:04 -0500 Waiman Long wrote:
>>
And, from that perspective, the racy shortcut in the proposed patch
is wrong, too. Prefetch is fine, but in general shor
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:47:36PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:54:04 -0500 Waiman Long wrote:
>
> > > And, from that perspective, the racy shortcut in the proposed patch
> > > is wrong, too. Prefetch is fine, but in general shortcutting list
> > > empty checks outside the
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 08:43:41AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 11/29/2017 07:53 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:17:34AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> The list_lru_del() function removes the given item from the LRU list.
> >> The operation looks simple, but i
On 11/30/2017 03:38 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 08:54:04AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>
>> For the record, I add one more list_empty() check at the beginning of
>> list_lru_del() in the patch for 2 purpose:
>> 1. it allows the code to bail out early.
> Which is what I said was
On 11/30/2017 03:47 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:54:04 -0500 Waiman Long wrote:
>
>>> And, from that perspective, the racy shortcut in the proposed patch
>>> is wrong, too. Prefetch is fine, but in general shortcutting list
>>> empty checks outside the internal lock isn't.
>>
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:54:04 -0500 Waiman Long wrote:
> > And, from that perspective, the racy shortcut in the proposed patch
> > is wrong, too. Prefetch is fine, but in general shortcutting list
> > empty checks outside the internal lock isn't.
>
> For the record, I add one more list_empty() ch
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 08:54:04AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 11/29/2017 07:42 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:53:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:17:34 -0500 Waiman Long wrote:
> >>
> >>> The list_lru_del() function removes the given item fro
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:17:34AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> The list_lru_del() function removes the given item from the LRU list.
> The operation looks simple, but it involves writing into the cachelines
> of the two neighboring list entries in order to get the deletion done.
> That can take a w
On 11/29/2017 07:42 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:53:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:17:34 -0500 Waiman Long wrote:
>>
>>> The list_lru_del() function removes the given item from the LRU list.
>>> The operation looks simple, but it involves writing
On 11/29/2017 07:53 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:17:34AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The list_lru_del() function removes the given item from the LRU list.
>> The operation looks simple, but it involves writing into the cachelines
>> of the two neighboring list ent
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:17:34AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> The list_lru_del() function removes the given item from the LRU list.
> The operation looks simple, but it involves writing into the cachelines
> of the two neighboring list entries in order to get the deletion done.
> That can
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:53:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:17:34 -0500 Waiman Long wrote:
>
> > The list_lru_del() function removes the given item from the LRU list.
> > The operation looks simple, but it involves writing into the cachelines
> > of the two neighboring
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:17:34 -0500 Waiman Long wrote:
> The list_lru_del() function removes the given item from the LRU list.
> The operation looks simple, but it involves writing into the cachelines
> of the two neighboring list entries in order to get the deletion done.
> That can take a while
The list_lru_del() function removes the given item from the LRU list.
The operation looks simple, but it involves writing into the cachelines
of the two neighboring list entries in order to get the deletion done.
That can take a while if the cachelines aren't there yet, thus
prolonging the lock hol
18 matches
Mail list logo
