From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 11 May 2002 21:40:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 11 May 2002 21:40:37 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.101]:50153 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 11 May 2002 21:40:36 -0400 Message-ID: <3CDDC7F0.6010407@us.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 18:40:00 -0700 From: Dave Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020504 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Wilcox CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: fs/locks.c BKL removal In-Reply-To: <3CDC4037.8040104@us.ibm.com> <20020511204551.M32414@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Matthew Wilcox wrote: > Ick... I'd really like to see one spinlock protecting all activity in this > area. And obviously not the magic BKL ;-) Do you really think a single lock is the way to go? Maybe I'm just paranoid, but somebody is going to run into a locking bottleneck here eventually. I also just don't like global locks. I'll ask our benchmarking team if they have test suites for file locking. I crossing my fingers. -- Dave Hansen haveblue@us.ibm.com