Re: [PATCH] mm: prevent concurrent unmap_mapping_range() on thesame inode

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 15:12 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> 
> In his [2/8] mm: remove i_mmap_mutex lockbreak patch, Peter says
> "shouldn't hold up reclaim more than lock_page() would".  But (apart
> from a write error case) we always use trylock_page() in reclaim, we
> never dare hold it up on a lock_page(). 

D'0h! I so missed that, ok fixed up the changelog.

>  So page reclaim would get
> held up on truncation more than at present - though he's right to
> point out that truncation will usually be freeing pages much faster.

*phew* :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/