Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755623Ab1FTTtY (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:49:24 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:37492 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751731Ab1FTTtW (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:49:22 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,396,1304319600"; d="scan'208";a="16058340" From: Andi Kleen To: Al Viro Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [RFC] get_write_access()/deny_write_access() without inode->i_lock References: <20110619235147.GQ11521@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 12:47:54 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20110619235147.GQ11521@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (Al Viro's message of "Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:51:47 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 587 Lines: 19 Al Viro writes: > I'm seriously tempted to throw away i_lock uses in > {get,deny}_write_access(), as in the patch below. The question is, how Are there any known workload where the spinlock contends badly here? Or what's the motivation for it? Thanks, -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only -- 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/