[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <522E98B4.1050906@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 23:57:40 -0400
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To: George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
CC: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
aswin@...com, john@...ffel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, scott.norton@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] dcache: Translating dentry into pathname without
taking rename_lock
On 09/09/2013 08:40 PM, George Spelvin wrote:
> I'm really wondering about only trying once before taking the write lock.
> Yes, using the lsbit is a cute hack, but are we using it for its cuteness
> rather than its effectiveness?
>
> Renames happen occasionally. If that causes all the current pathname
> translations to fall back to the write lock, that is fairly heavy.
> Worse, all of those translations will (unnecessarily) bump the write
> seqcount, triggering *other* translations to fail back to the write-lock
> path.
>
> One patch to fix this would be to have the fallback read algorithm take
> sl->lock but *not* touch sl->seqcount, so it wouldn't break concurrent
> readers.
Actually, a follow-up patch that I am planning to do is to introduce a
read_seqlock() primitive in seqlock.h that does exactly that. Then the
write_seqlock() in this patch will be modified to read_seqlock().
-Longman
--
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