* Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > yeah - i think Andrew said that a global lock at that particular place
> > > might not be that much of an issue.
> >
> > OK, I'll start stripping it out of my kernel today and make a clean
> > patch for you.
>
> Ingo, I haven't forgotten about this, I just been heavily bug wacking
> lately and just haven't had the time to do this.
>
> I've pulled out both the lock_bh_state and lock_bh_journal_head and
> made them two global locks. I haven't noticed any slowing down here,
> but then again I haven't ran any real benchmarks. There's a BH flag
> set to know when the lock is pending on a specific buffer head.
>
> I don't know how acceptable this patch is. Take a look and if you have
> any better ideas then let me know. I prefer this patch over the
> wait_on_bit patch I sent you earlier since this patch still accounts
> for priority inheritance, as the wait_on_bits don't.
looks much cleaner than earlier ones. Would it be possible to make the
locks per journal? I've applied it to the -44-05 kernel so that it gets
some testing.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
