lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/17] fs: icache lock s_inodes list
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 01:49:09AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:18:34PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
> >
> > To allow removal of the inode_lock, we first need to protect the
> > superblock inode list with it's own lock instead of using the
> > inode_lock for this purpose. Nest the new sb_inode_list_lock inside
> > the inode_lock around the list operations it needs to protect.
>
> Is there any good reason not to make this lock per-superblock?

Because in the first part of the inode lock series, it is breaking
locks in obvious small steps as possible, by adding global locks
protecting bits of what inode_lock used to.

If we did want to make it per-superblock, that would come at the
last part of the series, where inode_lock is removed and steps are
being taken to improve scalability and locking.

But I don't see why we want to make it per-superblock really anyway.
We want to have scalability within a single superblock, so per CPU
locks are needed. Once we have those, per-superblock doesn't really
buy much.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-16 09:57    [W:0.171 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site