Re: [PATCH 1a/7] dlm: core locking

From: Joel Becker
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 12:21:17 EST

On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> reduce the latency for this case. My gut feeling, though, is that I'd
> still prefer to see the DLM doing its work properly, cluster-wide in
> this case, as precaution against accidents if we get inconsistent states
> on disk leading to two nodes trying to create the same lock at once.
> Experience suggests that such things *do* go wrong, and it's as well to
> plan for them --- early detection is good!

And unacceptably slow. With LKM_LOCAL, OCFS2 approaches ext3
speed untarring a kernel tree, because everything under the toplevel
directory is a candidate for LKM_LOCAL. Network communication may be
fast, but pagecache operations are even faster. I don't know by how
much, but I bet if we turned off LKM_LOCAL in the OCFS2 DLM, we'd lose a
lot of speed.



One look at the From:
understanding has blossomed
.procmailrc grows
- Alexander Viro

Joel Becker
Senior Member of Technical Staff
E-mail: joel.becker@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone: (650) 506-8127

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at