On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:34:55AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > Quoting Liu Bo (2013-05-16 10:31:39) > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 07:54:17AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > > Quoting Miao Xie (2013-05-16 03:22:37) > > > > > I must say that the patch itself looks harmless, the reason is not good enough. > > > > > > > > I don't agree with you. > > > > It is perishing that The memory reclaim task is blocked for a long time. We should avoid > > > > this problem. > > > > > > synchronize_rcu and friends can take a very very long time. I like this > > > patch as a way to avoid them, it's just keeps the whole kernel moving. > > > > > > -chris > > > > Okay, that teaches me another lesson, thanks Miao :) > > Actually using the rcu api isn't a huge impact. It's just the > synchronize_rcu variants that should be avoided ;) > > -chris > Now that it's so slow, I wonder why not use call_srcu() instead? thanks, liubo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
