Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/reiserfs_fs.h b/include/linux/reiserfs_fs.h
> index 6587b4e..397d281 100644
> --- a/include/linux/reiserfs_fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/reiserfs_fs.h
> @@ -1302,7 +1302,13 @@ static inline loff_t max_reiserfs_offset(struct inode *inode)
> #define get_generation(s) atomic_read (&fs_generation(s))
> #define FILESYSTEM_CHANGED_TB(tb) (get_generation((tb)->tb_sb) != (tb)->fs_gen)
> #define __fs_changed(gen,s) (gen != get_generation (s))
> -#define fs_changed(gen,s) ({cond_resched(); __fs_changed(gen, s);})
> +#define fs_changed(gen,s) \
> +({ \
> + reiserfs_write_unlock(s); \
> + cond_resched(); \
> + reiserfs_write_lock(s); \
Did you try writing that
if (need_resched()) { \
reiserfs_write_unlock(s); \
cond_resched(); \ (or schedule(), but cond_resched does a loop)
reiserfs_write_lock(s); \
}
? That might give better performance under load because users will be better
batched and you don't release the lock unnecessarily in the unloaded case.
-Andi
--
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
