lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [Ext2-devel] [PATCH] concurrent block allocation for ext2 against 2.5.64
    On Mar 13, 2003  11:55 +0300, Alex Tomas wrote:
    > as Andrew said, concurrent balloc for ext3 is useless because of BKL.
    > and I saw it in benchmarks. but it may be useful for ext2.

    Sadly, we are constantly diverging the ext2/ext3 codebases. Lots of
    features are going into ext3, but lots of fixes/improvements are only
    going into ext2. Is ext3 holding BKL for doing journal_start() still?

    Looking at ext3_prepare_write() we grab the BKL for doing journal_start()
    and for journal_stop(), but I don't _think_ we need BKL for journal_stop()
    do we? We may or may not need it for the journal_data case, but that is
    not even working right now I think.

    It also seems we are getting BKL in ext3_truncate(), which likely isn't
    needed past journal_start(), although we do need to have superblock-only
    lock for ext3_orphan_add/del.

    Cheers, Andreas
    --
    Andreas Dilger
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
    http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/

    -
    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 13:33    [W:0.024 / U:59.440 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site