Re: [PATCH] fs/buffer: Make BH_Uptodate_Lock bit_spin_lock a regular spinlock_t

2019-10-11 Thread Sebastian Siewior
On 2019-08-20 20:01:14 [+0200], Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:08:18PM +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote: > > > Bit spinlocks are problematic if PREEMPT_RT is enabled, because they > > > disable preemption, which is undesired for

Re: [PATCH] fs/buffer: Make BH_Uptodate_Lock bit_spin_lock a regular spinlock_t

2019-08-20 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:08:18PM +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote: > > Bit spinlocks are problematic if PREEMPT_RT is enabled, because they > > disable preemption, which is undesired for latency reasons and breaks when > > regular spinlocks are taken

Re: [PATCH] fs/buffer: Make BH_Uptodate_Lock bit_spin_lock a regular spinlock_t

2019-08-20 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:08:18PM +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote: > Bit spinlocks are problematic if PREEMPT_RT is enabled, because they > disable preemption, which is undesired for latency reasons and breaks when > regular spinlocks are taken within the bit_spinlock locked region because >

[PATCH] fs/buffer: Make BH_Uptodate_Lock bit_spin_lock a regular spinlock_t

2019-08-20 Thread Sebastian Siewior
From: Thomas Gleixner Bit spinlocks are problematic if PREEMPT_RT is enabled, because they disable preemption, which is undesired for latency reasons and breaks when regular spinlocks are taken within the bit_spinlock locked region because regular spinlocks are converted to 'sleeping spinlocks'