From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 06:00:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.13] lockless pagecache 7/7 In-Reply-To: <4317F203.7060109@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: References: <4317F071.1070403@yahoo.com.au> <4317F0F9.1080602@yahoo.com.au> <4317F136.4040601@yahoo.com.au> <4317F17F.5050306@yahoo.com.au> <4317F1A2.8030605@yahoo.com.au> <4317F1BD.8060808@yahoo.com.au> <4317F1E2.7030608@yahoo.com.au> <4317F203.7060109@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Linux Memory Management , linux-kernel List-ID: For Itanium (and I guess also for ppc64 and sparch64) the performance of write_lock/unlock is the same as spin_lock/unlock. There is at least one case where concurrent reads would be allowed without this patch. Maybe keep the rwlock_t there? -- 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-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org