On Tuesday, January 29, 2002 01:46:43 PM +0300 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Hans Reiser wrote:
>>
>>> This fails to recover an object (e.g. dcache entry) which is used once,
>>> and then spends a year in cache on the same page
On Tuesday, January 29, 2002 01:46:43 PM +0300 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexander Viro wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Hans Reiser wrote:
This fails to recover an object (e.g. dcache entry) which is used once,
and then spends a year in cache on the same page as an object
Josh MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> We're not talking about actively referenced entries, we're talking about
> entries on the d_lru list with zero references. Relocating those objects
> should not require any more locking than currently required to remove and
> re-insert the
Oliver Xymoron wrote:
>
>Can we get you to agree that basically all subpage objects are immovable?
>
No. Certainly not in the general case, and I think Josh found ways to
handle the dcache case. If we can simply free the old objects, we don't
actually have to move the hot ones, as he points
Oliver Xymoron wrote:
Can we get you to agree that basically all subpage objects are immovable?
No. Certainly not in the general case, and I think Josh found ways to
handle the dcache case. If we can simply free the old objects, we don't
actually have to move the hot ones, as he points
Josh MacDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
We're not talking about actively referenced entries, we're talking about
entries on the d_lru list with zero references. Relocating those objects
should not require any more locking than currently required to remove and
re-insert the dcache
6 matches
Mail list logo
