Re: [PATCH] remove lame schedule in journal inverted_lock (was: Re: [patch 0/3] j_state_lock, j_list_lock, remove-bitlocks)

Steven Rostedt
2005-03-18T10:39:28Z

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Andrew,
> >
> > Since I haven't gotten a response from you,
>
> It sometimes takes me half a day to get onto looking at patches. And if I
> take them I usually don't reply (sorry). But I don't drop stuff, so if you
> don't hear, please assume the patch stuck. If others raise objections
> to the patch I'll usually duck it as well, but it's pretty obvious when that
> happens.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be pushy. I understand that you have a lot on your
plate, and I'm sure you don't drop stuff. I just wasn't sure that you
noticed that that was a patch and not just a reply on this thread, since I
didn't flag it as such in the subject. I just didn't want it to slip under
the radar.

>
> I really should knock up a script to send out an email when I add a patch
> to -mm.
>

I thought you might have had something like that already, which was
another reason I thought you might have skipped this.

> > I'd figure that you may have
> > missed this, since the subject didn't change. So I changed the subject to
> > get your attention, and I've resent this. Here's the patch to get rid of
> > the the lame schedule that was in fs/jbd/commit.c. Let me know if this
> > patch is appropriate.
>
> I'm rather aghast at all the ifdeffery and complexity in this one. But I
> haven't looked at it closely yet.
>

I wanted to keep the wait logic out when it wasn't a problem. Basically,
the problem only occurs when bit_spin_trylock is defined as an actual
trylock. So I put in a define there to enable the wait queues. I didn't
want to waste cycles checking the wait queue in jbd_unlock_bh_state when
there would never be anything on it. Heck, I figured why even have the
wait queue wasting memory if it wasn't needed. So that added the
ifdeffery complexity.

Thanks,

-- Steve