On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > If you're going to do this, then the BKL should be acquired
> > in fs/super.c:write_super(), so the per-fs ->write_super
> > functions do not see changed external locking rules.
> >
> > Possibly, fs/inode.c:write_inode() needs the same treatment.
> > But Doc/filesystems/Locking says that lock_kernel() is not
> > held across ->write_inode so there should be no need to take
> > it on the kupdate path.
> That sounds sane. I was just fishing for information before I go do
> anything drastic.
I would personally avoid doing these kinds of locking changes in 2.4.x
altogether, unless there are really drastic reasons for them (ie real
machines under load at real customer sites that really care).
> > That's for 2.4. For 2.5, we'd like sync_old_buffers to just
> > go away. Do you have time to test
> >http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/2.5/2.5.8/everything.patch.gz
> Absolutely. What else does it contain that I should watch out for?
Don't use it on a production machine, but since this is in the 2.5.x
future, I'd love to hear about not just lock contention but also about
whether you can see any problems under heavy load.
Linus
-
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 : Tue Apr 23 2002 - 22:00:33 EST