Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...>, Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@...>, Jack Steiner <steiner@...>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...>, <kvm-devel@...>, Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...>, Roland Dreier <rdreier@...>, Steve Wise <swise@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Avi Kivity <avi@...>, <linux-mm@...>, <general@...>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@...>, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...>, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...>
I'm not understanding the question. If you can do you management outside
of the spinlocks, then you can obviously do whatever you want, including
sleping. It's changing the existing spinlocks to be sleepable that is not
acceptable, because it's such a performance problem.
Linus
--
