Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261466AbVDJKcX (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:32:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261467AbVDJKcX (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:32:23 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:51642 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261466AbVDJKcT (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:32:19 -0400 Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:31:34 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Steven Rostedt Cc: LKML Subject: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-rc1-V0.7.41-07 Message-ID: <20050410103134.GA6234@elte.hu> References: <1112273378.3691.228.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050331141040.GA2544@elte.hu> <1112290916.12543.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050331174927.GA11483@elte.hu> <1112317173.28076.10.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050401044307.GB22753@elte.hu> <1112332426.28076.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050401051947.GA23990@elte.hu> <1112358445.28076.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1112908910.22577.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1112908910.22577.54.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1359 Lines: 32 * Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > yeah - i think Andrew said that a global lock at that particular place > > > might not be that much of an issue. > > > > OK, I'll start stripping it out of my kernel today and make a clean > > patch for you. > > Ingo, I haven't forgotten about this, I just been heavily bug wacking > lately and just haven't had the time to do this. > > I've pulled out both the lock_bh_state and lock_bh_journal_head and > made them two global locks. I haven't noticed any slowing down here, > but then again I haven't ran any real benchmarks. There's a BH flag > set to know when the lock is pending on a specific buffer head. > > I don't know how acceptable this patch is. Take a look and if you have > any better ideas then let me know. I prefer this patch over the > wait_on_bit patch I sent you earlier since this patch still accounts > for priority inheritance, as the wait_on_bits don't. looks much cleaner than earlier ones. Would it be possible to make the locks per journal? I've applied it to the -44-05 kernel so that it gets some testing. Ingo - 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/