Re: [rfc] lockless pagecache

On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:31:40AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > >> > > I don't recall seeing tree_lock to be a problem for DSS workload > >> > > either. > >> > > >> > I have seen the tree_lock being a problem a number of times with large >

Re: [rfc] lockless pagecache

>> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: >> > > I don't recall seeing tree_lock to be a problem for DSS workload either. >> > >> > I have seen the tree_lock being a problem a number of times with large >> > scale NUMA type workloads. >> >> I totally agree! My earlier posts are strictly

Re: [rfc] lockless pagecache

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:42:44PM -0700, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > Christoph Lameter wrote on Monday, June 27, 2005 12:23 PM > > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > > > I don't recall seeing tree_lock to be a problem for DSS workload either. > > > > I have seen the tree_lock being a

Re: [rfc] lockless pagecache

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:42:44PM -0700, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: Christoph Lameter wrote on Monday, June 27, 2005 12:23 PM On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: I don't recall seeing tree_lock to be a problem for DSS workload either. I have seen the tree_lock being a problem a

Re: [rfc] lockless pagecache

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: I don't recall seeing tree_lock to be a problem for DSS workload either. I have seen the tree_lock being a problem a number of times with large scale NUMA type workloads. I totally agree! My earlier posts are strictly referring to

Re: [rfc] lockless pagecache

On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:31:40AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: I don't recall seeing tree_lock to be a problem for DSS workload either. I have seen the tree_lock being a problem a number of times with large scale NUMA type