> > Please elaborate on "no, no, no". Are you suggesting that no further
> > improvements can be made or should be attempted on the 2.4 i/o subsystem?
>
> Of course not. The no no no just means that attempting to globally remove the
> io_request_lock at this point is a no-go, so don't even go there. The
> sledgehammer approach will not fly at this point, it's just way too risky.
I agree that reducing locking scope is often problematic. However,
this patch does not globally remove the io_request_lock. The purpose
of the patch is to protect request queue integrity with a per queue
lock instead of the global io_request_lock. My intent was to leave
other io_request_lock serialization intact. Any insight into whether
the patch leaves data unprotected would be appreciated.
Jonathan
-- Jonathan Lahr IBM Linux Technology Center Beaverton, Oregon lahr@us.ibm.com 503-578-3385- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 21:00:35 EST