Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 04:10:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 04:10:49 -0400 Received: from smtp805.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.168.184]:53635 "HELO smtp805.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 13 Oct 2002 04:10:49 -0400 From: "Joseph D. Wagner" To: "'David S. Miller'" Cc: , , , Subject: RE: Strange load spikes on 2.4.19 kernel Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 03:16:30 -0500 Message-ID: <000e01c27290$dd0b5640$7443f4d1@joe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 In-Reply-To: <20021013.005005.41948345.davem@redhat.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 951 Lines: 26 >>> But there is no fundamental reason for that, we just haven't >>> gotten around to threading that bit yet. >> Oh yes there is. What if an allocation of blocks and/or >> inodes is preempted? Another thread could attempt to >> allocate the same set of blocks and/or inodes. > That's why we protect the allocation with SMP locking > primitives which under Linux prevent preemption. "SMP locking primitives"? Tell me what that is again? Oh yeah! That's when the kernel basically gives SMP a timeout and behaves as if there was only one processor. So in effect, I was right. File processes really do use one and only one processor. > This isn't rocket science.... I agree. I totally agree. - 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/