[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1429550126.7346.268.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 10:15:26 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Mateusz Guzik <mguzik@...hat.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@...eya.com>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: use a sequence counter instead of file_lock in
fd_install
On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 17:10 +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> Sorry for spam but I came up with another hack. :)
>
> The idea is that we can have a variable which would signify the that
> given thread is playing with fd table in fd_install (kind of a lock
> embedded into task_struct). We would also have a flag in files struct
> indicating that a thread would like to resize it.
>
> expand_fdtable would set the flag and iterate over all threads waiting
> for all of them to have the var set to 0.
The opposite : you have to block them in some way and add a rcu_sched()
or something.
Another way would be to expand the table leaving the old one in place,
thanks to a new vrealloc() api. This would require all file tables to at
least use one page.
(Instead of use a new set of pages for the new vmalloc()ed area, reuse
the pages that are already mapped into previous vmalloc() area.
Right now, expanding 4M slots to 8M slots is taking a long time and is a
latency killer.
--
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