From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753339AbbFWAVW (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:21:22 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50107 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752661AbbFWAVP (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:21:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 02:19:59 +0200 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, tj@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, der.herr@hofr.at, dave@stgolabs.net, riel@redhat.com, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 11/13] fs/locks: Replace lg_local with a per-cpu spinlock Message-ID: <20150623001959.GA8723@redhat.com> References: <20150622121623.291363374@infradead.org> <20150622122256.670144110@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150622122256.670144110@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Off-topic question, On 06/22, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > @@ -2650,9 +2660,8 @@ static void *locks_start(struct seq_file > > iter->li_pos = *pos + 1; > percpu_down_write(&file_rwsem); > - lg_global_lock(&file_lock_lglock); > spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock); > - return seq_hlist_start_percpu(&file_lock_list, &iter->li_cpu, *pos); > + return seq_hlist_start_percpu(&file_lock_list.hlist, &iter->li_cpu, *pos); > } ... > static void locks_stop(struct seq_file *f, void *v) > __releases(&blocked_lock_lock) > { > spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock); With or without this patch, why locks_start/locks_stop need to take/drop blocked_lock_lock ? Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/