[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070109105305.GA22984@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:53:05 +0000
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
Cc: viro@....linux.org.uk, hch@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] r/o bind mounts: add vfsmount and superblock writer counts
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:34:45AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Removing it had a few side-effects. First of all, it made me move
> all of the operations on the counts of writers to underneath the
> spinlock that was already there. I guess this could be a cause
> for potential contention because there _are_ locks in the common
> code paths now. But, I do agree with Christoph that it would be
> awfully hard to get it contended.
>
> The other side-effect is that we can't have the bit in mnt_flags
> to be a shortcut to the superblock's writeable state since we
> don't have a way to go find the mounts and that bit when a fs
> changes writeable state. This causes a potential cache miss
> when we have to check the superblock directly during the
> relatively common __mnt_is_readonly() function.
Why? We _only_ need to check the vfsmount flag. vfsmount can
become r/w if the superblock is marked r/o which means the
underlying (block/network/etc) device is fundamentally not writeable.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists