T Makphaibulchoke <tmac@xxxxxx> writes: > The patch consists of three parts. > > The first part changes the implementation of both the block and hash chains of > an mb_cache from list_head to hlist_bl_head and also introduces new members, > including a spinlock to mb_cache_entry, as required by the second part. spinlock per entry is usually overkill for larger hash tables. Can you use a second smaller lock table that just has locks and is indexed by a subset of the hash key. Most likely a very small table is good enough. Also I would be good to have some data on the additional memory consumption. -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
