Re: [PATCH 2.6.13] lockless pagecache 7/7

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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 2.6.13] lockless pagecache 7/7
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>

• References:
  • New lockless pagecache
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 2.6.13] lockless pagecache 1/7
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 2.6.13] lockless pagecache 2/7
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 2.6.13] lockless pagecache 3/7
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 2.6.13] lockless pagecache 4/7
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 2.6.13] lockless pagecache 5/7
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 2.6.13] lockless pagecache 6/7
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • [PATCH 2.6.13] lockless pagecache 7/7
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 2.6.13] x86_64: Add notify_die() to another spot in do_page_fault()
• Next by Date: [PATCH 2.6.13] PCI/libata INTx bug fix
• Previous by thread: [PATCH 2.6.13] lockless pagecache 7/7
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 2.6.13] lockless pagecache 7/7
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]