Re: [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5

From: Andrew Morton (akpm@zip.com.au)
Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 13:54:33 EST


Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Martin Wirth wrote:
> >
> > There are currently several attempts discussed to push out the
> > BKL and replace it by a semaphore e.g. the next step Robert Love
> > planned for his ll_seek patch (replace the BKL by inode i_sem).
>
> But that won't have any contention anyway, so it's a non-issue.
>

Yesterday, Ingo said:

> i think one example *could* be to turn inode->i_sem into a combi-lock. Eg.
> generic_file_llseek() could use the spin variant.
>
> this is a real performance problem, i've seen scheduling storms in
> dbench-type runs due to llseek taking the inode semaphore.

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



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:00:20 EST