Re: [PATCH] Invalidate_inodes can be very slow

[William Lee Irwin III]

William Lee Irwin III <wli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Generally dcache_lock stands in front of inode_lock, even with the
>> current hashtable RCU code. inode_lock has been seen before in unusual
>> situations I don't remember offhand, though generally it's not #1.
>> The workloads used for, say, benchmark testing don't adequately model
>> situations like what you just mentioned (or a number of other real-life
>> usage cases), so per-sb inode_lock may be worth considering on a priori
>> grounds, though it would probably be better to actually set something
>> up to test that scenario.

On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 03:45:01PM +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> This patch can be tested quite easily. Main changes are in invalidate_list.
> This path can be triggered by umount/quota off.
> So I tested it the following way:
> 1. mounting/working/umounting partition (and turning quota on/off)
> 2. running memeater to call prune_icache when partition was mounted
> to test that lists are ok.
> All other places should be ok, since simple list_add/list_del is inserted.

Sorry if I was unclear, I had in mind SMP performance testing of mount
and unmount -heavy workloads, like uni setups with many automounted fs's,
not stability testing per se.

-- wli
-
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/