[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: rename() contention (BUG?)
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 11:19:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:43:34PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >>The changes make the mutex more efficient, but won't decrease the
> >>contention. It seems that all renames in one filesystem are serialized,
> >>and if the renames require I/O (which is certainly the case with nfs),
> >>rename throughput is severely limited.
> >>
> >
> > They are, and for a good reason. For details see
> >Documentation/filesystems/directory-locking.
> >
> Is it possible to lock only the common subtree of the two paths?
> Perhaps walk towards the root of the tree, starting with the deeper
> path, locking one component at a time. Then walk both paths together
> locking components ordered by something to avoid deadlock.

Please, read the file mentioned above.
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: 2006-10-26 23:41    [W:0.024 / U:12.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site