[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180518095102.GE12217@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 11:51:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>, darrick.wong@...cle.com,
tytso@....edu, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, clm@...com,
jbacik@...com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, willy@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] locking: bring back lglocks
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 03:49:04AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> bcachefs makes use of them - also, add a proper lg_lock_init()
Why?! lglocks are horrid things, we got rid of them for a reason. They
have terrifying worst case preemption off latencies.
Why can't you use something like per-cpu rwsems?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists