* Steven Rostedt rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:18:16AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
NOT-Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org
s/NOT-// ?
Perhaps because it is still in RFC context?
Ok, i guess i was a bit too
* Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
NOT-Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org
s/NOT-// ?
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:18:16AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
NOT-Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org
s/NOT-// ?
Perhaps because it is still in RFC context?
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the
Hello, guys.
I've been playing with locking in btrfs which has developed custom
locking to avoid excessive context switches in its btree
implementation.
Generally, doing away with the custom implementation and just using
the mutex adaptive owner spinning seems better; however, there's an
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
Currently, mutex_trylock() doesn't use adaptive spinning. It tries
just once. I got curious whether using adaptive spinning on
mutex_trylock() would be beneficial and it seems so, at least for
btrfs anyway.
Hmm. Seems
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 08:48:01AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
Currently, mutex_trylock() doesn't use adaptive spinning. It tries
just once. I got curious whether using adaptive spinning on
mutex_trylock() would be
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
Currently, mutex_trylock() doesn't use adaptive spinning. It tries
just once. I got curious whether using adaptive spinning on
