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"?
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).
As for prune_dcache() (or shrink_dcache()) it does not seem to be
invoked from get_empty_inode() so it is still not clear where the big
problem lies.

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

regards,
Tigran.

-
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:0.045 / U:0.412 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site