[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110726114906.GA19975@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:49:06 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, npiggin@...nel.dk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: dont chain pipe/anon/socket on superblock s_inodes
list
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:43:33PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> BTW, we have one atomic op that could be avoided in new_inode()
>
> spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> inode->i_state = 0;
> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>
> can probably be changed to something less expensive...
>
> inode->i_state = 0;
> smp_wmb();
>
> Not clear if we really need a memory barrier either....
I think we already had this in some of the earlier vfs/inode scale
series, but it got lost when Al asked to just put the fundamental
changes in.
For plain new_inode() the barrier shouldn't be needed as we take
the sb list lock just a little later. I'm not sure about your new
variant, so I'll rather lave that to you.
There's a few other things missing from earlier iterations, most notable
the non-atomic i_count, and the bucket locks for the inode hash, if
you're eager enough to look into that area.
--
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