On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun 10-02-13 21:42:32, Michel Lespinasse wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > +void range_lock_init(struct range_lock *lock, unsigned long start, >> > + unsigned long end); >> > +void range_lock(struct range_lock_tree *tree, struct range_lock *lock); >> > +void range_unlock(struct range_lock_tree *tree, struct range_lock *lock); >> >> Is there a point to separating the init and lock stages ? maybe the API could be >> void range_lock(struct range_lock_tree *tree, struct range_lock *lock, >> unsigned long start, unsigned long last); >> void range_unlock(struct range_lock_tree *tree, struct range_lock *lock); > I was thinking about this as well. Currently I don't have a place which > would make it beneficial to separate _init and _lock but I can imagine such > uses (where you don't want to pass the interval information down the stack > and it's easier to pass the whole lock structure). Also it looks a bit > confusing to pass (tree, lock, start, last) to the locking functon. So I > left it there. > > OTOH I had to somewhat change the API so that the locking phase is now > separated in "lock_prep" phase which inserts the node into the tree and > counts blocking ranges and "wait" phase which waits for the blocking ranges > to unlock. The reason for this split is that while "lock_prep" needs to > happen under some lock synchronizing operations on the tree, "wait" phase > can be easily lockless. So this allows me to remove the knowledge of how > operations on the tree are synchronized from range locking code itself. > That further allowed me to use mapping->tree_lock for synchronization and > basically reduce the cost of mapping range locking close to 0 for buffered > IO (just a single tree lookup in the tree in the fast path). Ah yes, being able to externalize the lock is good. I think in this case, it makes the most sense for lock_prep phase to also initialize the lock node, though. >> Reviewed-by: Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx> > I actually didn't add this because there are some differences in the > current version... Did I miss another posting of yours, or is that coming up ? Cheers, -- Michel "Walken" Lespinasse A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>