On 02/06/2016 06:57 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:11:56PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
On 01/31/2016 07:47 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
So at what point does simply replacing the list_head with a list_lru
become more efficient than this batch processing (i.e.
https://lkml.org/lkml/
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:11:56PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 01/31/2016 07:47 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >So at what point does simply replacing the list_head with a list_lru
> >become more efficient than this batch processing (i.e.
> >https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/3/10/660)? The list_lru isn't a
On 01/31/2016 07:47 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 02:30:44PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
Linked list insertion or deletion under lock is a very common activity
in the Linux kernel. If this is the only activity under lock, the
locking overhead can be pretty large compared with the
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 02:30:44PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> Linked list insertion or deletion under lock is a very common activity
> in the Linux kernel. If this is the only activity under lock, the
> locking overhead can be pretty large compared with the actual time
> spent on the insertion or
Linked list insertion or deletion under lock is a very common activity
in the Linux kernel. If this is the only activity under lock, the
locking overhead can be pretty large compared with the actual time
spent on the insertion or deletion operation itself especially on a
large system with many CPUs
5 matches
Mail list logo
