Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:39:14 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: open-scale-2.6.2-A0 |
| |
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > * Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org> wrote: > > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > i've attached an obvious scalability improvement for write()s. We in > > > essence used a system-global lock for every open(WRITE) - argh! > > > > I wonder if the "rip the second arsehole" is there for a reason. > > these days i dont think the comment is justified.
It was kinda funny though.
> > Does this scalability improvement make any measured difference in any > > conceivable application, or is it just making struct inode larger? > > i've not added any new lock, i'm merely reusing the existing ->i_lock. > So there's no data or code bloat whatsoever.
yes, that's why I called it i_lock and not i_blocks_lock. i_lock's mandate is "an innermost lock for protecting stuff in the inode". This is an appropriate use of it.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |