lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans