lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: inode_lock "decorative"?
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Eleonora Autore wrote:

>Hi,
>
>> > The access to last_ino is serialized by spin lock, so that
>> > it is allowed to be not-atomic.
>> >
>> > Real bug is inside grow_inodes(), which calls prune_dcache() in turn.
>> > And nobody took care of poor dcache in 2.3, so that it stands now
>> > as bone in throat and all similar operations require big kernel lock.
>
>what is grow_inodes()? I can't see anything called that (in 2.3.30-1).

There isn't. When I rewrote the inode allocation from scratch I got rid of
such stuff. Now the icache gets shrunk only when the memory goes low and
now the icache is populated only by _caching_ entities.

>I.e. get_empty_inode() looks SMP-safe to me. What am I missing?

You aren't missing nothing, it's SMP-safe and can be safely called without
the big kernel lock.

Andrea


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.347 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site