Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] bh-safe lock removal for SUNRPC
From:   Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <6d1e56b4b352ee29eb8c88f95e4b839117562e42.camel@hammerspace.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 May 2019 16:02:01 -0400
Cc:     Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E24BA50E-21DF-4642-8922-B47F69CC42BD@oracle.com>
References: <20190503111841.4391-1-trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>
 <39608ABA-9E3F-443A-9F4C-7B91B885C7DD@oracle.com>
 <6d1e56b4b352ee29eb8c88f95e4b839117562e42.camel@hammerspace.com>
To:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


> On May 6, 2019, at 2:37 PM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> On Mon, 2019-05-06 at 14:22 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> Hi Trond-
>>=20
>>> On May 3, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> This patchset aims to remove the bh-safe locks on the client side.
>>> At this time it should be seen as a toy/strawman effort in order to
>>> help the community figure out whether or not there are setups out
>>> there that are actually seeing performance bottlenecks resulting
>>> from taking bh-safe locks inside other spinlocks.
>>=20
>> What kernel does this patch set apply to? I've tried both v5.0 and
>> v5.1, but there appear to be some changes that I'm missing. The
>> first patch does not apply cleanly.
>>=20
>=20
> It should hopefully apply on top of Anna's linux-next branch.

OK, you did mention that to me last week. Sorry for the noise.

--
Chuck Lever