[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100818193043.GG13050@fieldses.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:30:43 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"Patrick J. LoPresti" <lopresti@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Use hi-res clock for file timestamps
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 09:25:08PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 02:54:56PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 07:50:40PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > - nfsd updates it whenever it reads an mtime out of an inode that matches
> > > > current_fs_time to the granularity of 1/HZ.
> > >
> > > That means you have a very very hot cache line on a larger system
> > > if there are a lot of mtime changes. Probably a bad idea.
> >
> > Only if those mtime changes are also followed immediately by nfsd reads
> > of the mtime.
>
> If multiple writers are changing the same location in quick succession
> you have a hot cache line that gets bounced around. It doesn't need reads,
> although reads make it even worse.
OK, at this point one of us is confused, and I'm not sure which.
Is the "same location" that you're referring to the current_nfsd_time?
Neil's suggestion is to only modify current_nfsd_time on nfsd getattr,
*not* on the write operation that modifies the file data.
Or are you talking about something else?
> There's a lot of effort currently to make the VFS more parallel
> and less synchronized and it would be bad again to regress here again.
Understood.
--b.
--
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