[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190802075612.GA20962@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 00:56:12 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Julia Cartwright <julia@...com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>, Mark Fasheh <mark@...heh.com>,
Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 0/7] fs: Substitute bit-spinlocks for PREEMPT_RT and
debugging
Hi Thomas,
did you look into killing bіt spinlocks as a public API instead?
The main users seems to be buffer heads, which are so bloated that
an extra spinlock doesn't really matter anyway.
The list_bl and rhashtable uses kinda make sense to be, but they are
pretty nicely abstracted away anyway. The remaining users look
pretty questionable to start with.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists