From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <42B29635.2020700@yahoo.com.au> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:21:57 +1000 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Global spinlock vs local bit spin locks References: <1118982092.5261.44.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <20050617044611.GF3913@holomorphy.com> <42B28B44.9090606@yahoo.com.au> <20050617084521.GG3913@holomorphy.com> In-Reply-To: <20050617084521.GG3913@holomorphy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: "David S. Miller" , anton@samba.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Peter Keilty List-ID: William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > I'm ambivalent now I guess. I'm not wild about bh's in the first place, > so infecting core code with new dependencies on them doesn't sound hot, > though I still can't help cringing at using a bitflag in the first bh > in the list to protect against concurrent teardown of the bh list, > which relies on the setup/teardown patterns. > It's not quite as bad as that - there will be no teardown while any of the buffers are still in flight. The lock is simply to protect concurrent completion of requests, it could just as easily go in the last bh. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com