On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 03:25:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 10:59:32AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Pages unmapped during reclaim acquire/release the mapping->tree_lock for > > every single page. There are two cases when it's likely that pages at the > > tail of the LRU share the same mapping -- large amounts of IO to/from a > > single file and swapping. This patch acquires the mapping->tree_lock for > > multiple page removals. > > So, once upon a time, in a galaxy far away,.. I did a concurrent > pagecache patch set that replaced the tree_lock with a per page bit- > spinlock and fine grained locking in the radix tree. > > I know the mm has changed quite a bit since, but would such an approach > still be feasible? > > I cannot seem to find an online reference to a 'complete' version of > that patch set, but I did find the OLS paper on it and I did find some > copies on my local machines. https://www.kernel.org/doc/ols/2007/ols2007v2-pages-311-318.pdf -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>