lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: spinlock usage - ext2_get_block, lru_list_lock
    Date
    In article <20010321180607.A11941@linuxcare.com>,
    Anton Blanchard <anton@linuxcare.com.au> wrote:
    >
    >It was not surprising the BKL was one of the main offenders. Looking at the
    >stats ext2_get_block was the bad guy (UTIL is % of time lock was busy for,
    >WAIT is time spent waiting for lock):

    Actually, I find the BKL fairly surprising - we've whittled down all the
    major non-lowlevel-FS offenders, and I didn't realize that it's still
    there in do_exit().

    And the do_exit() case should be _trivial_ to fix: almost none of the
    code protected by the kernel lock in the exit path actually needs the
    lock. I suspect you could cut down the kernel lock there to much
    smaller.

    The big case seems to be ext2_get_block(), we'll fix that early in
    2.5.x. I think Al already has patches for it.

    As to lseek, that one should probably get the inode semaphore, not the
    kernel lock.

    Linus
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.040 / U:0.796 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site