Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:10:25 -0500 (EST) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5 |
| |
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 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. > > oh, that is a really cool thing! > > llseek() is unrelated, and i think pretty gross. Is there any other reason > to llseek()'s i_sem usage other than the 64-bit atomic update of the file > offset value? We can do lockless, SMP-correct 64-bit updates on x86 pretty > easily.
Umm... Wait a second. You've seen the problems on ->i_sem variant of llseek()? My apologies - I've misparsed you.
I seriously suspect that BKL-for-lseek() will be good enough once we kill BKL in ext2_get_block() and friends. IOW, I doubt that generic_file_lseek() showing up in BKL contention is the real problem...
- 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/
| |