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]>
- Re: [PATCH 2.6.13] lockless pagecache 7/7
- 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]>
- New lockless pagecache
- 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):
