lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: nfsd changes for 3.5
    On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:53 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
    > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:17:26PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    >
    > Uh, that means ditching some work in my public git tree.  Which I
    > haven't rebased in years.  So, a stupid process question; would you
    > rather I:
    >
    >        - continue to be strict about rebasing and apply a bunch of
    >          reverts?
    >        - ditch it and start over?

    I think in this case rebasing is the right thing to do.

    I hate rebasing, but what I hate about it is how people who use it as
    a development model cause problems for anybody else. I don't think it
    will cause problems in this particular case, but if somebody hollers,
    let me know.

    >> Making
    >> it an rwsem might help readdir a tiny amount, but I suspect people
    >> actually depend on the mutex in readdir right now.
    >
    > Al called this all "highly non-trivial":
    >
    >        http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=132726495726326&w=2
    >
    > I don't know who'd have the cycles.

    I agree, it's a rats nest.

    Doing lookups in particular is ridiculously single-threaded for almost
    no good reason, though (and create is just a special case of that). It
    *should* be possible that push the i_mutex down into the filesystem,
    if we just created some fake dentry (with the appropriate support for
    lookup to stall on it) to make sure that lookups of the same *name*
    are serialized.

    At that point, each filesystem could decide that they don't need the
    i_mutex for the whole thing.

    Maybe.

    And readdir() could be done mostly mechanically by changing i_mutex
    into an rwsem, making all lockers use a write lock, and pushing the
    locking down from the caller into the filesystem for ->readdir().
    Again, at that point, I suspect many filesystems could do with much
    less locking.

    But yeah, it's all nasty. Even the purely mechanical part of changing
    i_mutex to an rwsem would not only be a *huge* and painful patch, it
    would hit things like lockdep issues too (we don't support the nesting
    thing for rwsem annotations, afaik).

    So nobody has really done it, and it's so painful that maybe nobody
    will. There are loads that hit this serialization point, but they are
    *fairly* rare and specialized.

    Linus
    --
    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: 2012-06-01 00:41    [W:0.039 / U:61.540 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site