Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264723AbTFVJxF (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:53:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264725AbTFVJxF (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:53:05 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:2180 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264723AbTFVJxD (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Jun 2003 05:53:03 -0400 Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 12:03:01 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Lou Langholtz Cc: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Pavel Machek , Steven Whitehouse Subject: Re: [PATCH] nbd driver for 2.5+: fix for module removal & new block device layer Message-ID: <20030622100301.GJ608@suse.de> References: <3EF4D2C8.6060608@aros.net> <20030621225500.GL6754@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <3EF4E73A.4070108@aros.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EF4E73A.4070108@aros.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 760 Lines: 20 On Sat, Jun 21 2003, Lou Langholtz wrote: > > b) you definitely don't have to use separate queue locks. The > >thing will work fine with spinlock being shared and I doubt that there > >will be any noticable extra contention. > > > Probably not noticeable no. The approach you took is probably _worse_ than a single lock, since you don't even cache align the locks. I'd say just keep the single nbd_lock and use that in all queues, seperate locks are a questionable win but do take up extra space. -- Jens Axboe - 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/