Re: open-scale-2.6.2-A0

[Andrew Morton]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 
> * Jamie Lokier <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > i've attached an obvious scalability improvement for write()s. We in
> > > essence used a system-global lock for every open(WRITE) - argh!
> > 
> > I wonder if the "rip the second arsehole" is there for a reason.
> 
> these days i dont think the comment is justified.

It was kinda funny though.

> > Does this scalability improvement make any measured difference in any
> > conceivable application, or is it just making struct inode larger?
> 
> i've not added any new lock, i'm merely reusing the existing ->i_lock. 
> So there's no data or code bloat whatsoever.

yes, that's why I called it i_lock and not i_blocks_lock.  i_lock's mandate
is "an innermost lock for protecting stuff in the inode".  This is an
appropriate use of it.

-
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/