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    [W:0.022 / U:60.860 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site