Message-ID: <4E8B5AC0.5020100@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:13:04 -0700
From:	Allison Henderson <achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
CC:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: Plan for reducing i_mutex in ext4

On 10/04/2011 01:57 AM, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:00:00 -0700, Allison Henderson<achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>  wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've been working on locating all the existing uses of i_mutex in the
>> current ext4 code because I know we are planning to reduce the usage of
>> i_mutex in ext4.  So I've gone through the ext4 code and also the vfs
>> code and come up with a list of ext4 items that appear to be protected
>> under i_mutex.  I'm thinking about doing a patch to replace i_mutex with
>> a private ext4 mutex, and I wanted to update folks on this idea and pick
>> up any feed back people might have.
>>
>> I'm thinking maybe we can have a separate mutex for functions that only
>> modify meta data like ext4_ioctl and ext4_setattr to help relieve
>> unneeded contention.
> Are you going to change vfs core locking?

Hi there,

No, I initially had only thought about adding private locks to ext4, and 
removing any occurrence of i_mutex locking in ext4, but it sounds like 
Christoph has some more ideas to share to make this more generic.

>>   And then the rest of functions that are modifying
>> data can go under a data mutex (including truncate since sometimes
>> ext4_ioctl and ext4_setattr will call ext4_truncate if they modify i_size).
>>
>> So these are ext4 functions that currently lock i_mutex:
>>
>> ext4_sync_file
>> ext4_fallocate
>> ext4_move_extents via two helper routines:
>> 	mext_inode_double_lock and mext_inode_double_unlock
>> ext4_ioctl (for the EXT4_IOC_SETFLAGS ioctl)
>> ext4_quota_write
> We can easily avoid i_mutex on quota write because quota file can not
> be truncated, and grows only in case of new dquot added.
> I'll send you a patch.

Ah, alrighty then, thx!  Any place we can currently remove i_mutex where 
it is not needed is certainly helpful.  :)

>> ext4_llseek
>> ext4_end_io_work
>> ext4_evict_inode (only while calling ext4_flush_completed_IO)
>> ext4_ind_direct_IO (only while calling ext4_flush_completed_IO)
>>
>>
>> And these are ext4 functions that have i_mutex locked by the vfs layer.
>>    So we will need to lock the new private mutex here too if we want them
>> to be synchronous with the above functions.
>>
>> ext4_setattr
>> ext4_da_writepages
>> ext4_rmdir
>> ext4_unlink
>> ext4_symlink
>> ext4_link
>> ext4_rename
>>
>> And one unique case:
>> ext4_fiemap calls generic_block_fiemap and passes it a function pointer
>> to ext4_get_block.  generic_block_fiemap will lock i_mutex before
>> calling the pointer.  I dont think ext4_get_block needs i_mutex locked
>> all the time, so I think we can just make a wrapper for ext4_get_block
>> that locks the new private mutex and then we can pass a pointer to the
>> wrapper.
>>
>>
>> That's my list so far, if anyone knows of one I missed please let me
>> know, and also if you spot any other places where we can reduce unneeded
>> contention by using a separate lock.  Thx!
>>
>> Allison Henderson
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists