On Fri, 6 Nov 2009, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 09:58:26PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(_name_read_lock); > > Any reason for a mutex rather than a spinlock? There can be both. I basically use the rule "if there can be either spinlock or mutex, use mutex". Because mutexes don't create scheduling latency --- i.e. you don't have to check them "how much time can it spend inside a mutex and how to break a long lock into few smaller locks". Performance of mutex and spinlock in non-contended case is the same. Mikulas -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
