[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1311677013.2355.25.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:43:33 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: 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
Le mardi 26 juillet 2011 à 05:42 -0400, Christoph Hellwig a écrit :
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:36:34AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > [PATCH v2] vfs: dont chain pipe/anon/socket on superblock s_inodes list
> >
> > Workloads using pipes and sockets hit inode_sb_list_lock contention.
> >
> > superblock s_inodes list is needed for quota, dirty, pagecache and
> > fsnotify management. pipe/anon/socket fs are clearly not candidates for
> > these.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>
> Looks good to me,
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
>
Thanks !
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....
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists