[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190806061119.GA17492@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 23:11:19 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
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
On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 11:07:53AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Last time I did, there was resistance :)
Do you have a pointer? Note that in the buffer head case maybe
a hash lock based on the page address is even better, as we only
ever use the lock in the first buffer head of a page anyway..
> What about the page lock?
>
> mm/slub.c: bit_spin_lock(PG_locked, &page->flags);
One caller ouf of a gazillion that spins on the page lock instead of
sleepign on it like everyone else. That should not have passed your
smell test to start with :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists