lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 12/17] fs: Introduce per-bucket inode hash locks
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:52:14PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> Instead of doing the lock overkill on a still fundamentally global data

How do you figure it is overkill? Actually the hash insertion/removal
scales *really* well with per-bucket locks and it is a technique used
and proven in other parts of the kernel like networking.

Having a global lock there is certainly a huge bottleneck when you
start increasing system size, so I don't know why you keep arguing
against this.


> structure what about replacing this with something better.

I won't be doing this until after the scalability work.

> you've already done this with the XFS icache, and while the per-AG
> concept obviously can't be generic at least some of the lessons could be
> applied.
>
> then again how much testing did this get anyway given that you
> benchmark ran mostly XFS which doesn't hit this at all?
>
> If it was up to me I'd dtop this (and the bl_list addition) from the
> series for now and wait for people who care about the scalability of
> the generic icache code to come up with a better data structure.

I do care about scalability of icache code. Given how simple this
is, and seeing as we're about to have the big locking rework, I
much prefer just fixing all the global locks now (which need to
be fixed anyway).



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-16 09:57    [W:0.319 / U:0.732 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site