Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Jun 2015 02:19:59 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/13] fs/locks: Replace lg_local with a per-cpu spinlock |
| |
Off-topic question,
On 06/22, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > @@ -2650,9 +2660,8 @@ static void *locks_start(struct seq_file > > iter->li_pos = *pos + 1; > percpu_down_write(&file_rwsem); > - lg_global_lock(&file_lock_lglock); > spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock); > - return seq_hlist_start_percpu(&file_lock_list, &iter->li_cpu, *pos); > + return seq_hlist_start_percpu(&file_lock_list.hlist, &iter->li_cpu, *pos); > }
...
> static void locks_stop(struct seq_file *f, void *v) > __releases(&blocked_lock_lock) > { > spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
With or without this patch, why locks_start/locks_stop need to take/drop blocked_lock_lock ?
Oleg.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |