[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Ext2-devel] [PATCH] concurrent block allocation for ext2 against 2.5.64
On Mar 13, 2003  11:55 +0300, Alex Tomas wrote:
> as Andrew said, concurrent balloc for ext3 is useless because of BKL.
> and I saw it in benchmarks. but it may be useful for ext2.

Sadly, we are constantly diverging the ext2/ext3 codebases. Lots of
features are going into ext3, but lots of fixes/improvements are only
going into ext2. Is ext3 holding BKL for doing journal_start() still?

Looking at ext3_prepare_write() we grab the BKL for doing journal_start()
and for journal_stop(), but I don't _think_ we need BKL for journal_stop()
do we? We may or may not need it for the journal_data case, but that is
not even working right now I think.

It also seems we are getting BKL in ext3_truncate(), which likely isn't
needed past journal_start(), although we do need to have superblock-only
lock for ext3_orphan_add/del.

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas Dilger

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.145 / U:0.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site