Re: Switching TestSetPageLocked to trylock_page

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

On Tuesday 05 August 2008 14:01, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Yup.  A mechanical rename-foo-to-bar can be prepared and merged late -
> > there's little payback for the pain of maintaining it for a couple of
> > months.
> >
> > Would prefer either that we hold off until after 2.6.27 is released or
> > just do it now.
>
> I'd like to have the performance improvement on powerpc in 2.6.27 :-)

Well I would too, but I won't push the actual performance improvements
this time (maybe the lockdep work, though, if it is working).

I will try to get the rename in, and then get the performance
improvements into -mm and let Andrew merge when he's ready. To be honest,
I'm satisfied that 2.6.27 contains enough potential for npiggin to have
spectacularly broken the kernel...


> I've always hated the way we abused bitops as locks, it's terribly
> inefficient for us, so that's a nice cleanup as far as I'm concerned.

I agree, especially for widely used locks like page and buffer lock.
If *nothing* else it is much more readable...