Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:33:08 -0700 | From | Jonathan Lahr <> | Subject | Re: io_request_lock/queue_lock patch |
| |
> > Please elaborate on "no, no, no". Are you suggesting that no further > > improvements can be made or should be attempted on the 2.4 i/o subsystem? > > Of course not. The no no no just means that attempting to globally remove the > io_request_lock at this point is a no-go, so don't even go there. The > sledgehammer approach will not fly at this point, it's just way too risky.
I agree that reducing locking scope is often problematic. However, this patch does not globally remove the io_request_lock. The purpose of the patch is to protect request queue integrity with a per queue lock instead of the global io_request_lock. My intent was to leave other io_request_lock serialization intact. Any insight into whether the patch leaves data unprotected would be appreciated.
Jonathan
-- Jonathan Lahr IBM Linux Technology Center Beaverton, Oregon lahr@us.ibm.com 503-578-3385
- 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/
| |