Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Nov 1999 20:27:25 +0100 (CET) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |