lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: dentry bloat.
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 May 2004, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > I think we can simply take ->d_lock a bit earlier in __d_lookup. That will
> > serialise against d_move(), fixing the problem which you mention, and also
> > makes d_movecount go away.
>
> If you do that, RCU basically loses most of it's meaning.
>
> You'll be taking a lock for - and dirtying in the cache - every single
> dentry on the hash chain, which is pretty much guaranteed to be slower
> than just taking the dcache_lock _once_, even if that one jumps across
> CPU's a lot.

Can take the lock after comparing the hash and the parent?

And if we recheck those after locking, d_movecount is unneeded?
-
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 14:03    [W:0.330 / U:0.508 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site