From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754078Ab2LRB5I (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:57:08 -0500 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:36760 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752691Ab2LRB5H (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:57:07 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 01:57:05 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux FS Devel Subject: Re: Are there u32 atomic bitops? (or dealing w/ i_flags) Message-ID: <20121218015705.GH4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 05:10:21PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > I want to change inode->i_flags access to be atomic -- there are some > locking oddities right now, I think, and I want to use a new inode > flag to signal mtime updates from page_mkwrite. The problem is that > i_flags is an unsigned int, and making it an unsigned long seems like > a waste, but there aren't any u32 atomic bitops. ... and atomic accesses cost more. A lot more on some architectures. FWIW, atomic_t *is* 32bit on 32bit architectures, which still doesn't make it a good idea.