lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    DateSun, 22 Jun 2003 12:03:01 +0200
    FromJens Axboe <>
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] nbd driver for 2.5+: fix for module removal & new block device layer
    On Sat, Jun 21 2003, Lou Langholtz wrote:
    > >	b) you definitely don't have to use separate queue locks.  The
    > >thing will work fine with spinlock being shared and I doubt that there
    > >will be any noticable extra contention.
    > >
    > Probably not noticeable no.
    
    The approach you took is probably _worse_ than a single lock, since you
    don't even cache align the locks. I'd say just keep the single nbd_lock
    and use that in all queues, seperate locks are a questionable win but do
    take up extra space.
    
    -- 
    Jens Axboe
    
    -
    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/
    
    
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:36    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2008