On Thursday 31 July 2008 17:26, Nick Piggin wrote:
quoted text
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering if I could get a patch merged which changes all
> TestSetPageLocked and replaces them with trylock_page?

Yes? No?

The alternative is try to merge it via -mm or -next, but that just
wastes everybodies time with conflicts of having these differences
between -mm and mainline.


quoted text
>
> It would be done so there are no functional changes.
>
> The reason I want to (aside from having a slightly more
> intuitive API), is to facilitate the implementation of lockdep
> on page lock, and also to use lock semantics bitops for the
> lock rather than the big-hammer barriers that come with
> test_and_set_bit.
>
> The lock bitops stuff is one of the parts of my patchset to speed
> up page lock functions (which results in nearly 50% faster
> pagecache throughput on my G5, and even slightly faster on x86)...
>
> Anyway, I remember you said these kinds of changes are appropriate
> for just after -rc1, and I agree it shouldn't cause much pain.
>
> Fixing up patch conflicts is literally a matter of
> s/!TestSetPageLocked/trylock_page
> s/TestSetPageLocked/!trylock_page
>
> Thoughts?
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/