Re: [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5

From: Andrew Morton (akpm@zip.com.au)
Date: Thu Feb 07 2002 - 14:59:19 EST


Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Quite a few. Significant ones. pagemap_lru_lock and lru_list_lock
> > come to mind.
>
> ugh. Are you sure we want to *sleep* with something like pagemap_lru_lock
> held?

Not guilty :) I was answering rml's question.

I suspect lru_list_lock is the shining example. We often
take it for very short periods and occasionally take it
for enormous periods.

> That pretty much brings all pagecache related operations to a
> grinding halt.

yup. We'd go into a sheduling storm until we find the process
which holds the lock.

> I think complex spinlocked sections should be simplified
> rather.

yes.

-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:01:05 EST