On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 08:08:56AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:20:47PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 07:02:15 +0000 Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 02:12:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > off-topic, but the lockdep stuff in include/linux/lglock.h > > > > (LOCKDEP_INIT_MAP and DEFINE_LGLOCK_LOCKDEP) appears to be dead code. > > > > > > Um? See ..._lock_init(); it's used there. > > > > oops, I had Andi's patch applied. > > > > Wanna take a look at it while things are fresh in your mind? > > a) tons of trivial conflicts with fs/namespace.c changes in my tree > b) more seriously, the question of overhead - see the mail you replied > to. > The costly operations here are the atomics and nothing really changes for them. So I don't expect any measurable difference. I actually have an idea to remove them for the common case, but not in that patchkit or cycle :) I can run a ftrace if you want, but I expect any difference to be below the measurement inaccuracy. -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- 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
