From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:52:22 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/2] enable irqs when waiting for rwlocks
Message-Id: <1225443142.6825.4.camel@elijah.suse.cz>
List-Id: <linux-ia64.vger.kernel.org>
References: <1224777451.11530.52.camel@elijah.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <1224777451.11530.52.camel@elijah.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 18:08 +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> New in V2:
>  * get rid of ugly #ifdef's in kernel/spinlock.h
>  * convert __raw_{read|write}_lock_flags to an inline func
> 
> SGI has observed that on large systems, interrupts are not serviced for
> a long period of time when waiting for a rwlock. The following patch
> series re-enables irqs while waiting for the lock, resembling the code
> which is already there for spinlocks.
> 
> I only made the ia64 version, because the patch adds some overhead to
> the fast path. I assume there is currently no demand to have this for
> other architectures, because the systems are not so large. Of course,
> the possibility to implement raw_{read|write}_lock_flags for any
> architecture is still there.
> 
> Petr Tesarik

Any comments on my second patch series? Not even an Acked-by? Dislike of
the concept? Should I post it again?

I feel a bit too uncertain what the status is...

Petr