[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805061327490.32269@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 13:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...i.umich.edu>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AIM7 40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 09:36:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Hmm. Wouldn't it be nicer to make the lock be a per-inode thing? Or is
> > there some user that doesn't have the inode info, or does anything that
> > might cross inode boundaries?
>
> /proc/locks and deadlock detection both cross inode boundaries (and even
> filesystem boundaries). The BKL-removal brigade tried this back in 2.4
> and the locking ended up scaling worse than just plonking a single
> spinlock around the whole thing.
Ok, no worries. Just as long as I know why it's a single lock. Looks ok to
me, apart from the need for testing (and talking to NFS etc people).
Linus
--
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