On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:12:05PM -0500, Nathan Zimmer wrote: > Ok I am cloning the tree now. > It does look like the patches would conflict. > I'll run some tests and take a deeper look. FWIW, I've just pushed there a tentative patch that switches to hopefully saner locking (head should be at cb673c115c1f99d3480471ca5d8cb3f89a1e3bee). Is that more or less what you want wrt spinlock contention? One note: for any given pde_opener, close_pdeo() can be called at most by two threads - final fput() and remove_proc_entry() resp. I think the use of completion + flag is safe there; pde->pde_unload_lock should serialize the critical areas. -- 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
