Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:56:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:56:46 -0500 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:18846 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:56:38 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 13:56:07 -0500 (EST) From: Alexander Viro To: Ingo Molnar cc: Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , yodaiken , Martin Wirth , linux-kernel , torvalds , rml , nigel Subject: Re: [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote: > i'd suggest 64-bit update instructions on x86 as well, they do exist. > spinlock only for the truly hopeless cases like SMP boxes composed of > i486's. We really want llseek() to scale ... Ingo, are you sure that you actually saw llseek() causing problems? And not, say it, ext2_get_block()? If you've got a heavy holder of some lock + lots of guys who grab it for a short periods, the real trouble is the former, not the latter. I'm going to send ext2-without-BKL patches to Linus - tonight or tomorrow. I really wonder what effect that would have on the things. - 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/