Re: [RFC] get_write_access()/deny_write_access() without inode->i_lock

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> 	I'm seriously tempted to throw away i_lock uses in
> {get,deny}_write_access(), as in the patch below.  The question is, how

Are there any known workload where the spinlock contends badly here?
Or what's the motivation for it?

Thanks,

-Andi

-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux