Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 05:24:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Reply-To: rostedt@goodmis.org
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
cc: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.11-rc3-V0.7.38-01
In-Reply-To: <20050311101740.GA23120@elte.hu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503110521390.19798@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20050204100347.GA13186@elte.hu> <1108789704.8411.9.camel@krustophenia.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503100323370.14016@localhost.localdomain>
 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503100447150.14016@localhost.localdomain> <20050311095747.GA21820@elte.hu>
 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503110508360.19798@localhost.localdomain> <20050311101740.GA23120@elte.hu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1155
Lines: 28


On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> > I've tried making two global spinlocks, one for the state bit and one
> > for the journal head bit use.  But this deadlocks with j_state_lock.
> > The journal head lock seems to be ok to be global, but the state lock
> > needs to have one for every buffer head.  I'm now hacking away to do
> > this without touching the actual buffer head. But I'm not sure what
> > some of the side effects this is having.  I'll keep you posted when I
> > get something working.  I'm now having a crash course in how kjournal
> > and friends work.
>
> did you try the canonical way of putting a spinlock into every
> buffer_head?
>

No, I'll try that now. I just didn't want to modify the buffer head struct
just for journaling.  But if it is the quickest and easiest fix, then I'll
submit it and we can change it later.

-- Steve
-
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/