From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com (mail-ie0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D3876B0038 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:44:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id x19so13114420ier.29 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 08:44:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net. [2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:48]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ox6si7238482icb.56.2014.09.26.08.44.48 for ; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 08:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 10:44:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpuset: convert callback_mutex to a spinlock In-Reply-To: <778e648ce62511c7aff225ca067e0abedb247f25.1411741632.git.vdavydov@parallels.com> Message-ID: References: <778e648ce62511c7aff225ca067e0abedb247f25.1411741632.git.vdavydov@parallels.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vladimir Davydov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Li Zefan , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org On Fri, 26 Sep 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote: > The callback_mutex is only used to synchronize reads/updates of cpusets' > flags and cpu/node masks. These operations should always proceed fast so > there's no reason why we can't use a spinlock instead of the mutex. Checked that and given the other restrictions already on the use of callback_mutex this is to be expected. Acked-by: Christoph Lameter -- 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