From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760214AbYHEDOt (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 23:14:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753252AbYHEDOl (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 23:14:41 -0400 Received: from smtp113.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.84.66]:23586 "HELO smtp113.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755355AbYHEDOk (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 23:14:40 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=R7PMex2YiBEIhlD/zEWJHxgFa9iT70+1fX1akFPzX4YG5MjTIb3ZugV0tck6eWXIkqfnWpZ5/ivhbuMniQlbZoPzv+Mm1Ipss9eyT+uwOY9150FncFtx9Gd52tGFxGSffQv7+WC1tgJuYvSbgineafM1eCEn19uvkuMJ/YrL38A= ; X-YMail-OSG: _II64uEVM1kPBrCsXgw4vUiPp9SAxpS.oMrNpngIrUvvjq4SkpFk8YNo5OinRabM62.obuMyiw9z.Vi6EXxW3yocp0KYNMB4i1esazHprki8wCLEN4wiz4cFZUWZ1c9iQp8- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: Nick Piggin To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Switching TestSetPageLocked to trylock_page Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:14:33 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <200807311726.51816.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <200807311726.51816.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200808051314.33791.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 31 July 2008 17:26, Nick Piggin wrote: > 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. > > 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?