Re: [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5

From: Alexander Viro (viro@math.psu.edu)
Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 13:56:07 EST


On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> i'd suggest 64-bit update instructions on x86 as well, they do exist.
> spinlock only for the truly hopeless cases like SMP boxes composed of
> i486's. We really want llseek() to scale ...

Ingo, are you sure that you actually saw llseek() causing problems?
And not, say it, ext2_get_block()?

If you've got a heavy holder of some lock + lots of guys who grab it
for a short periods, the real trouble is the former, not the latter.

I'm going to send ext2-without-BKL patches to Linus - tonight or tomorrow.
I really wonder what effect that would have on the things.

-
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