lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [announce] vfs-scale git tree update
    From
    Date
    On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 12:01 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
    > > On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 12:41 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
    > >> On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 20:06 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > >> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
    >
    > >> > > Yeah, a hangover from changes done over time.
    > >> > > Not setting the dentry op in ->lookup() should fix this.
    > >> >
    > >> > Alex, care to test just removing the d_set_d_op() call from autofs4_lookup()?
    > >> >
    > >> > (That code is a bit scary, though - it explicitly makes it a negative
    > >> > dentry with a d_instantiate(dentry, NULL), and then hides the inode
    > >> > information away separately. Scary scary)
    > >>
    > >> Yeah, but the expire to mount races with autofs are difficult to handle
    > >> and this approach has worked well under heavy stress testing. It's true
    > >> that this would almost certainly be bad for a file system that supported
    > >> a full range of functionality but that's not so for autofs.
    > >
    > > I think I have to partly take this back.
    > > With Nick's recent vfs-scale patches this may not be OK any more since
    > > the dcache_lock has gone away and, at first glance, it looks like the
    > > added autofs4_lock spin lock doesn't provide the needed protection.
    >
    > Hm, what are the concurrencies that you need protection from?

    Ha, I think I'm wrong about this, after looking more closely at this I'm
    struggling to see why autofs4_lock is needed at all.




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-01-13 02:51    [W:4.168 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site