Re: rename() contention (BUG?)
From: Al Viro
Date: Thu Oct 26 2006 - 17:38:28 EST
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 11:19:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:43:34PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>The changes make the mutex more efficient, but won't decrease the
> >>contention. It seems that all renames in one filesystem are serialized,
> >>and if the renames require I/O (which is certainly the case with nfs),
> >>rename throughput is severely limited.
> > They are, and for a good reason. For details see
> Is it possible to lock only the common subtree of the two paths?
> Perhaps walk towards the root of the tree, starting with the deeper
> path, locking one component at a time. Then walk both paths together
> locking components ordered by something to avoid deadlock.
Please, read the file mentioned above.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/