[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52E6509E.5080103@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 05:27:10 -0700
From: Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke <thavatchai.makpahibulchoke@...com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: T Makphaibulchoke <tmac@...com>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
"adilger.kernel@...ger.ca" <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"aswin@...com" <aswin@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] ext4: increase mbcache scalability
On 01/24/2014 11:09 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> I think the ext4 block groups are locked with the blockgroup_lock that has about the same number of locks as the number of cores, with a max of 128, IIRC. See blockgroup_lock.h.
>
> While there is some chance of contention, it is also unlikely that all of the cores are locking this area at the same time.
>
> Cheers, Andreas
>
Thanks Andreas for the suggestion. Will try that versus adding just a new private spinlock array in mbcache and compare the performance.
Thanks,
Mak.
--
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