[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1217496828.8157.80.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:33:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Switching TestSetPageLocked to trylock_page
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 17:26 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering if I could get a patch merged which changes all
> TestSetPageLocked and replaces them with trylock_page?
>
> It would be done so there are no functional changes.
>
> The reason I want to (aside from having a slightly more
> intuitive API), is to facilitate the implementation of lockdep
> on page lock, and also to use lock semantics bitops for the
> lock rather than the big-hammer barriers that come with
> test_and_set_bit.
>
> The lock bitops stuff is one of the parts of my patchset to speed
> up page lock functions (which results in nearly 50% faster
> pagecache throughput on my G5, and even slightly faster on x86)...
>
> Anyway, I remember you said these kinds of changes are appropriate
> for just after -rc1, and I agree it shouldn't cause much pain.
>
> Fixing up patch conflicts is literally a matter of
> s/!TestSetPageLocked/trylock_page
> s/TestSetPageLocked/!trylock_page
>
> Thoughts?
I'm all for it ;-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists