Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753063Ab1CBPIe (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:08:34 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:55477 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751384Ab1CBPId (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:08:33 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Nick Bowler Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] ufs: remove the BKL Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 16:08:31 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-22-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Evgeniy Dushistov , Nick Piggin References: <1299021191-17961-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <1299021191-17961-5-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <20110302144705.GA15482@elliptictech.com> In-Reply-To: <20110302144705.GA15482@elliptictech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201103021608.31875.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:fq+XjXqJ5UXCneEA5IQKIxog+EdtZKh73KJkcqM7W7Y gg1lh3S96B+uldZi04rC4OJsY0OTeCN0iVTfjIgak6+zckL+mQ KSQqPTHG04OsRfppTq9oLicMEfE3XWmSEjRlMMtKfXzeDCvxFt 2xEBWfiO6P4xwAZ9QKCluJSTAlgBSef6QG7vAyoGAqUXoeRrP1 W1/p+qcL6MdGI+ecvJnlg== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1700 Lines: 39 On Wednesday 02 March 2011, Nick Bowler wrote: > On 2011-03-02 00:13 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > This introduces a new per-superblock mutex in UFS to replace > > the big kernel lock. I have been careful to avoid nested > > calls to lock_ufs and to get the lock order right with > > respect to other mutexes, in particular lock_super. > > > > I did not make any attempt to prove that the big kernel > > lock is not needed in a particular place in the code, > > which is very possible. > > > > The code is still only compile-tested, > > This isn't true anymore; I've been running with this patch (well, the > previous versions thereof) for some time now. On the other hand, I > don't use all of this driver's features. I'll updated the comment. Can I add your Tested-by tag? > > but it should at least be harmless on non-SMP systems, since the new > > mutex is not taken on those. > > I think this part of the patch is strange. It seems like a gratuitous > difference between SMP/preempt and other systems to #if out the code > that takes the mutex. This might make problems with the conversion fly > under the radar longer because people with older systems won't encounter > them. I agree it is strange, but the mutex has some serious performance impact that I wanted to minimize on the systems where we know it is not needed. The BKL was only active on those systems, so we know that non-SMP non-preempt kernels don't need the mutex. Arnd -- 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/