On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:05:22 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hugh says: > "The only significant loser, I think, would be page reclaim (when > concurrent with truncation): could spin for a long time waiting for > the i_mmap_mutex it expects would soon be dropped? " > > Counter points: > - cpu contention makes the spin stop (need_resched()) > - zap pages should be freeing pages at a higher rate than reclaim > ever can > - shouldn't hold up reclaim more than lock_page() would > > I think the simplification of the truncate code is definately worth > it. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> Maybe I have to improve batched-uncharge in memcg, whose work depends on ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE....but the zap routine seems cleaner. Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>