Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.13-rc4-V0.7.52-01

[Ingo Molnar]

* Stephen C. Tweedie <sct@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 12:20, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > > could you try a), how clean does it get? Personally i'm much more in 
> > > favor of cleanliness. On the vanilla kernel a spinlock is zero bytes on 
> > > UP [the most RAM-sensitive platform], and it's a word on typical SMP.
> 
> It's a word, maybe; but it's a word used only by ext3 afaik, and it's 
> getting added to the core buffer_head.  Not very nice.  It certainly 
> looks like the easiest short-term way out for a development patch 
> series, though.

but ext3 is pretty much the only mainstream FS that still makes use of 
buffer_heads, so it should be fine. Any other solution looks _way_ too 
hacky - and the current bit-spin-lock solution is less than charming 
too.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/