On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 02:40, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 02:20:00AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > and it's still racy
> >
> > damn, and it just booted ;)
> >
> > I'm just a little bit concerned over the ever-expanding inode. Do you
> > think the dual sequence numbers can be replaced by a single generation
> > counter?
>
> yes, I wrote it as a single counter first, but was unreadable and it had
> more branches, so I added the other sequence number to make it cleaner.
> I don't mind another 4 bytes, that cacheline should be hot anyways.
You could use the seqlock.h sequence locking. It only uses 1 sequence
counter. The 2.5 isize patch 1 has a sequence lock without the spinlock
so it only uses 4 bytes and it is somewhat more readable. I don't
think it has more branches.
I've attached the isize seqlock.h patch.
-- Daniel McNeil <daniel@osdl.org>
- 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 : Thu May 15 2003 - 22:00:57 EST