Re: [PATCH] 2.5: push BKL out of llseek

[Nigel Gamble]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Nigel Gamble wrote:
> > Am I remembering the problem correctly?
>
> I don't think so :)
>
> The problem was that the semaphore was highly contended, so the
> losing process was explicitly scheduling away.
>
> This doesn't necessarily mean that it was a long-held lock.  In
> this case, it was a short-held lock, but it was also very *frequently*
> being held and released.   This is a scenario where a spinlock is
> heaps more appropriate than a semaphore.

Oh, well in that case, I agree that a spinlock is more appropriate.

Nigel Gamble                                    [e-mail]
Mountain View, CA, USA.                         http://www.nrg.org/