From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:48:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:48:27 -0400 Received: from carisma.slowglass.com ([195.224.96.167]:51723 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:48:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:52:13 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Andrew Morton Cc: Linus Torvalds , lkml , "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [patch 2/21] reduced locking in buffer.c Message-ID: <20020813185213.A17449@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , lkml , "David S. Miller" References: <3D561473.40A53C0D@zip.com.au> <3D5947B7.EDE01C2E@zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3D5947B7.EDE01C2E@zip.com.au>; from akpm@zip.com.au on Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 10:53:59AM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 10:53:59AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > I have discussed it with David - he said it's OK in 2.5, but > not in 2.4, and he has eyeballed the diff. > > However there's another thing to think about: > > local_irq_disable(); > atomic_inc(); > > If the architecture implements atomic_inc with spinlocks, this will > schedule with interrupts off with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, I expect. > > I can fix that with a preempt_disable() in there, but ick. Is there a reason you can't just use brlocks?