From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 21:27:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Alexander Viro Subject: Re: [patch] vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 In-Reply-To: <20000925033128.A10381@athlon.random> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Rik van Riel , Roger Larsson , MM mailing list , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > I'm thinking that dropping the superblock lock completly wouldn't be much more > difficult than this mid stage. The only cases where we block in critical > sections protected by the superblock lock is in getblk/bread (bread calls > getblk) and ll_rw_block and mark_buffer_dirty. Once we drop the lock for the > first cases it should not be more difficult to drop it completly. ext2_new_block->dquot_alloc_block->lock_dquot ext2_new_block->dquot_alloc_block->check_bdq->print_warning->tty_write_message > Not sure if this is the right moment for those changes though, I'm not worried > about ext2 but about the other non-netoworked fses that nobody uses regularly. So help testing the patches to them. Arrgh... -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/