In article <Pine.LNX.4.05.10103211901070.705-100000@cosmic.nrg.org>,
Nigel Gamble <nigel@nrg.org> wrote:
>
>Why is the kernel lock held around sync_supers() and sync_inodes() in
>sync_old_buffers() and fsync_dev(), but not in sync_dev()? Is it just
>to serialize calls to these functions, or is there some other reason?
A lot of the FS locks need the kernel lock and are not SMP-safe on their
own. Look at "lock_super()" for the worst offender (I think most of the
other ones have been converted to properly lock on SMP).
sync_inodes() _shouldn't_ need it. sync_supers() definitely does.
The fact that sync_dev() doesn't get the kernel lock looks worrisome.
Of course, I don't think much of anything actually _uses_ "sync_dev()"
anyway (quick grep shows it up in revalidate, which gets the kernel lock
earlier)
But it might be a good idea to try to (a) remove the bkl from the
functions, and push it down into sync_supers() that definitely needs it
now (and remove it when it doesn't any more).
The long-term plan (ie 2.5.x) is to basically remove the bkl from all
the VFS interfaces. For 2.4.x, only the truly performance-critical stuff
was done (ie mainly name lookup and read/write page).
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 23 2001 - 21:00:16 EST