From c63e3c0b2498adec921b06c670d12c8c74b85538 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Frederic Weisbecker Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 20:01:09 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] kill-the-bkl/reiserfs: use mutex_lock in reiserfs_mutex_lock_safe reiserfs_mutex_lock_safe() is a hack to avoid any dependency between an internal reiserfs mutex and the write lock, it has been proposed to follow the old bkl logic. The code does the following: while (!mutex_trylock(m)) { reiserfs_write_unlock(s); schedule(); reiserfs_write_lock(s); } It then imitate the implicit behaviour of the lock when it was a Bkl and hadn't such dependency: mutex_lock(m) { if (fastpath) let's go else { wait_for_mutex() { schedule() { unlock_kernel() reacquire_lock_kernel() } } } } The problem is that by using such explicit schedule(), we don't benefit of the adaptive mutex spinning on owner. The logic in use now is: reiserfs_write_unlock(s); mutex_lock(m); // -> possible adaptive spinning reiserfs_write_lock(s); [ Impact: restore the use of adaptive spinning mutexes in reiserfs ] Cc: Jeff Mahoney Cc: Chris Mason Cc: Ingo Molnar Cc: Alexander Beregalov Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker --- fs/reiserfs/journal.c | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/reiserfs/journal.c b/fs/reiserfs/journal.c index ffb7f50abc2f..e9a972bd0323 100644 --- a/fs/reiserfs/journal.c +++ b/fs/reiserfs/journal.c @@ -566,11 +566,9 @@ static inline void insert_journal_hash(struct reiserfs_journal_cnode **table, static inline void reiserfs_mutex_lock_safe(struct mutex *m, struct super_block *s) { - while (!mutex_trylock(m)) { - reiserfs_write_unlock(s); - schedule(); - reiserfs_write_lock(s); - } + reiserfs_write_unlock(s); + mutex_lock(m); + reiserfs_write_lock(s); } /* lock the current transaction */ -- 2.34.1