Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:01:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:00:50 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:17934 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:00:21 -0500 Message-ID: <3C62DC97.51066181@zip.com.au> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 11:59:19 -0800 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-pre7 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mingo@elte.hu CC: Robert Love , Martin Wirth , linux-kernel , nigel Subject: Re: [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5 In-Reply-To: <3C62D49A.4CBB6295@zip.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Quite a few. Significant ones. pagemap_lru_lock and lru_list_lock > > come to mind. > > ugh. Are you sure we want to *sleep* with something like pagemap_lru_lock > held? Not guilty :) I was answering rml's question. I suspect lru_list_lock is the shining example. We often take it for very short periods and occasionally take it for enormous periods. > That pretty much brings all pagecache related operations to a > grinding halt. yup. We'd go into a sheduling storm until we find the process which holds the lock. > I think complex spinlocked sections should be simplified > rather. yes. - - 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/