[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908021107090.2285@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 11:07:53 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
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
Christoph,
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> did you look into killing bіt spinlocks as a public API instead?
Last time I did, there was resistance :)
But I'm happy to try again.
> 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.
What about the page lock?
mm/slub.c: bit_spin_lock(PG_locked, &page->flags);
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists