| To: | dgc@xxxxxxx (David Chinner) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: TAKE 950027 - xfs_icsb_lock_all_counters fails with CONFIG_PREEMPT and >=256p |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | 01 Mar 2006 22:36:05 +0100 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20060301125320.20FDA49F1681@chook.melbourne.sgi.com> |
| References: | <20060301125320.20FDA49F1681@chook.melbourne.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 |
dgc@xxxxxxx (David Chinner) writes: > using a spinlock per cpu for superblock counter exclusion results in > a preempt counter overflow at 256p and above. Change the exclusion mechanism > to use atomic bit operations and busy wait loops to emulate the spin > lock exclusion mechanism but without the preempt count issues. That sounds like the totally wrong place to fix this. Wouldn't it be better to fix the spinlocks instead instead of hacking around this? After all any other code on that big box could run into the same issue. -Andi |
| Previous by Date: | TAKE 950027 - xfs_icsb_lock_all_counters fails with CONFIG_PREEMPT and >=256p, David Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: TAKE 950027 - xfs_icsb_lock_all_counters fails with CONFIG_PREEMPT and >=256p, David Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | TAKE 950027 - xfs_icsb_lock_all_counters fails with CONFIG_PREEMPT and >=256p, David Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: TAKE 950027 - xfs_icsb_lock_all_counters fails with CONFIG_PREEMPT and >=256p, David Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |