On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:21:49 +1000, Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This still not merged? No, I've been away. I've put it in -next for tomorrow, though I'm not sure what the best way to get it to Linus next merge window. > There is a reason, which is performance. Extra function call, but also > IIRC the percpu accessor was not so fast doing it this way. Maybe > that's improved... > > So what's the performance difference? What benchmarks you usually run? Feel free to try it out and report back; I only have small hardware here. > > > > Since there are at least two users it makes sense to share this code in a > > library. This is also easier maintainable than a macro forest. > > > > This will also make it later possible to dynamically allocate lglocks and > > also use them in modules (this would both still need some additional, but > > now straightforward, code) > > Yes, but let's not do either of those things :) > > I was slightly crazy when committing that patch to the kernel, I'll > admit. So if performance isn't significantly affected, then definitely. > If it is... well, it's much easier to gain 1% performance by maintaining > 100 self contained lines of hilarious code like this than to actually > use your brain to improve somewhere else! Cheers, Rusty. -- 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
