[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140513143050.GU23991@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 15:30:50 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux-FSDevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/19] fs: buffer: Do not use unnecessary atomic
operations when discarding buffers
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 03:49:43PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > operation which is available on a lot of architectures, we'll be stuck
> > > with a cmpxchg loop instead :/
> > >
> > > *sigh*
> > >
> > > Anyway, nothing wrong with this patch, however, you could, if you really
> > > wanted to push things, also include BH_Lock in that clear :-)
> >
> > That's a bold strategy Cotton.
> >
> > Untested patch on top
> Although this looks correct, I have to say I prefer the explicit
> unlock_buffer() unless this has a measurable benefit.
>
I will keep this as a separate patch, move it to the end of the series
and check what the profiles look like. Thanks.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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