[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131202164601.GF10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 16:46:01 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>,
Ian Applegate <ia@...udflare.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>
Subject: Re: Found it! (was Re: [3.10] Oopses in kmem_cache_allocate() via
prepare_creds())
On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 05:27:55PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> It's not like there should be many (any?) VFS operations where a pipe
> is used via i_mutex and pipe->mutex in parallel, which would improve
> scalability - so I don't see the scalability advantage. (But I might
> be missing something)
>
> Barring such kind of workload the extra mutex just adds extra
> micro-costs because now two locks have to be taken on
> creation/destruction, plus it adds extra complexity and races.
>
> So unless I'm missing something obvious, another good fix would be to
> just revert pipe->mutex and rely on i_mutex as before?
You are missing the extra shitloads of complexity in ->i_mutex ordering,
and ->i_mutex is already used for too many things...
--
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