On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:21:15AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote: > I guess I should have defined CONFIG_RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK when compiling my > kernel since I also configured Samba with "--with-spinlocks":
Ok, this might explain it. Spinlocks are definitely a less tested part of the code. I have never really activated them. At least under Linux fnctl locks should be fast enough to cope with nearly any load. > Would you recommend that I recompile the kernel to enable spinlock support > (since this is a two-way SMP machine), or would you rather recommend that I > don't use spinlocks (i.e. recompile Samba NOT to try to use spinlocks)? The difference is that without Samba support for spinlocks you get another round-trip into the kernel for each lock. Linux is quite fast with that, so if you do not have a *very* good reason to enable them, could you please retry without spinlocks? Volker P.S: I might be wrong, but I'm not sure whether the spinlock code ever actually worked. Jeremy?
msg05802/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
