[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  14:23 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:39:48AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > 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.
> We badly need to remove the BKL from ext3; it's the source of massive
> performance problems for ext3 on larger machines.
> Stephen, you were telling me a week or two ago that there were some
> subtle issues involved with BKL removal from the jbd layer --- could
> you give us a quick summary of what landminds are there for whoever
> wants to try to tackle the ext3/jbd BKL removal?

Ted, as a start, we can move the (un)lock_kernel() calls from the ext3
code into the journal_start() and journal_stop(), and then continue to
push it down into the places where we need it and/or replace it with a
better lock. This not only makes the lock migration easier, but also
ensures that we always have the lock when we need it.

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:0.132 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site