* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In contrast, these "try to emulate bad behavior with the old known-ok > semaphores" don't show anything AT ALL. We already know it's related > to semaphores. And your patches aren't even guaranteed to show the > same issue. yeah, i was just trying to come up with patches to probe which one of the following two possibilities is actually the case: - if the regression is due to the difference in scheduling behavior of new semaphores (different wakeup patterns, etc.), that's fixable in the new semaphore code => then the BKL code need not change. - if the regression is due due to difference in the fastpath cost, then the new semaphores can probably not be improved (much of their appeal comes from them not being complex and not being in assembly) => then the BKL code needs to change to become cheaper [i.e. then we want your patch]. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
