Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753984Ab1CBPsw (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:48:52 -0500 Received: from dsl-67-204-24-19.acanac.net ([67.204.24.19]:35069 "EHLO mail.ellipticsemi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750959Ab1CBPsv (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:48:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:48:42 -0500 From: Nick Bowler To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Evgeniy Dushistov , Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] ufs: remove the BKL Message-ID: <20110302154842.GA32314@elliptictech.com> References: <1299021191-17961-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <1299021191-17961-5-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <20110302144705.GA15482@elliptictech.com> <201103021608.31875.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201103021608.31875.arnd@arndb.de> Organization: Elliptic Technologies Inc. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1586 Lines: 37 On 2011-03-02 16:08 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 02 March 2011, Nick Bowler wrote: > > On 2011-03-02 00:13 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > 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? Sure. > > > 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. Fair enough. If it hurts too much to run this code when it's not needed, then I guess it makes sense to leave it out. -- Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/) -- 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/