[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2605.1197995509@vena.lwn.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:31:49 -0700
From: corbet@....net (Jonathan Corbet)
To: Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: alan@...hat.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@...radead.org,
peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/8] revoke: inode revoke lock V7
This is a relatively minor detail in the rather bigger context of this
patch, but...
> @@ -642,6 +644,7 @@ struct inode {
> struct list_head inotify_watches; /* watches on this inode */
> struct mutex inotify_mutex; /* protects the watches list */
> #endif
> + wait_queue_head_t i_revoke_wait;
That seems like a relatively hefty addition to every inode in the system
when revoke - I think - will be a fairly rare operation. Would there be
any significant cost to using a single, global revoke-wait queue instead
of growing the inode structure?
jon
--
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