[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.054 / U:23.308 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site