Re: [patch] fix spinlock-debug looping

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Spinlocks are alot fairer. Or as a simple experiment, 
> > s/read_lock/write_lock, as the patch below (against rc6-mm2) does. 
> > This is phase #1, if it works out we can switch tree_lock to a 
> > spinlock. [write_lock()s are roughly as fair to each other as 
> > spinlocks - it's a bit more expensive but not significantly] Builds 
> > & boots fine here.
> 
> tree_lock was initially an rwlock.  Then we made it a spinlock.  Then 
> we made it an rwlock.  We change the dang thing so often we should 
> make it a macro ;)

ha! In -rt we can change types of locks by changing the type definition 
and the declaration only ;-) [It makes for some confusing reading though 
if done without restraint]

> Let's just make it a spinlock and be done with it.  Hopefully Dave or 
> ccb@xxxxxxx (?) will be able to test it.  I was planning on doing a 
> patch tomorrowish.

ok. Until that happens the patch i sent can be used for testing.

	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/