| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <87lj9vyuhe.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:36:45 +0200 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [patch 00/52] vfs scalability patches updated Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> writes: > > I'm not denying it that we need to do work here - I'm questioning > the "change everything at once" approach this patch set takes. > You've started from the assumption that everything the dcache_lock > and inode_lock protect are a problem and goes from there. Global code locks in a core subsystem are definitely a problem. In many ways they're as bad a a BKL. There will be always workloads where they hurt. They are bad coding style. They just have to go. I don't understand how anyone can even defend them. Especially bad are code locks that protect lots of different things. Those are not only bad for scalability, but also bad for maintainability, because few people can really understand them even. With smaller well defined locks that's usually easier. -Andi -- ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- 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