Re: [RFC] New locking primitive for 2.5

Ingo Molnar
2002-02-08T19:26:04Z

On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Alexander Viro wrote:

> Had anyone actually seen lseek() vs. lseek() contention prior to the
> switch to ->i_sem-based variant? [...]

yes, i've seen this for years. (if you accept dbench overhead.)

and regarding the reintroduction of BKL, *please* do not just use a global
locks around such pieces of code, lock bouncing sucks on SMP, even if
there is no overhead.

Ingo