From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:56:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:56:34 -0400 Received: from e23.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.229]:1748 "EHLO e23.nc.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 10:56:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:52:01 -0700 From: Jonathan Lahr To: Jens Axboe Cc: lahr@beaverton.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: io_request_lock/queue_lock patch Message-ID: <20010831075201.N23680@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20010830134930.F23680@us.ibm.com> <20010831075613.A2855@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010831075613.A2855@suse.de>; from axboe@suse.de on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 07:56:13AM +0200 X-Operating-System: Linux 2.0.32 on an i486 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jens, Please elaborate on "no, no, no". Are you suggesting that no further improvements can be made or should be attempted on the 2.4 i/o subsystem? Jonathan Jens Axboe [axboe@suse.de] wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30 2001, Jonathan Lahr wrote: > > > > Included below is a snapshot of a patch I am developing to reduce > > io_request_lock contention in 2.4. > > No no no, you are opening a serious can of worms. No offense, but did > you really think this would fly?! This is already being taken care of > for 2.5, lets leave 2.4 alone in this regard. > > -- > Jens Axboe -- Jonathan Lahr IBM Linux Technology Center Beaverton, Oregon lahr@us.ibm.com 503-578-3385