On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 14:13 +0300, Andrey Kuzmin wrote: >> Turning try_lock into indefinitely spinning one breaks its semantics, >> so deadlock is to be expected. But what's wrong in this scenario if >> try_lock spins a bit before giving up? > > Because that will cause this scenario to spin that "little longer" > always, and introduce latencies that did not exist before. Either the > solution does not break this scenario, or it should not go in. Broken semantics and extra latency are two separate issues. If the former is fixed, the latter is easily handled by introducing new mutex_trylock_spin call that lets one either stick to existing behavior (try/fail) or choose a new one where latency penalty is justified by locking patterns. Regards, Andrey > > -- Steve > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
