![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
From: "Joseph D. Wagner" <wagnerjd@prodigy.net> Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 02:49:55 -0500 > But there is no fundamental reason for that, we just haven't > gotten around to threading that bit yet. Oh yes there is. What if an allocation of blocks and/or inodes is preempted? Another thread could attempt to allocate the same set of blocks and/or inodes. That's why we protect the allocation with SMP locking primitives which under Linux prevent preemption. This isn't rocket science, the IP networking is fully threaded for example and I consider that about as hard to thread as something like ext2/ext3 inode/block allocation. Also, as Andi Kleen noted, it's actually filesystem dependant whether the inode/block allocation is threaded or not. - 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 12:30 [W:0.152 / U:0.190 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||