Is there a subtle reason that explains why we are holding some lock
when not necessary? I can't see the reason so IMO the below patch
should be applyed.
I bet you'll see a small, if any, benefit from these changes.
The locks are obtained so close together and for such a short sequence
that any granularity benefits you see would be better served by larger
scale changes.
In fact, you'll see better performance gains by removing the inline
directive for the various list/hash link/unlink functions, I majorly
overdid them and such directives should be removed.
Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/