Re: [patch 00/27] [rfc] vfs scalability patchset

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 05:18:29AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> However, files_lock part 2 looks very dubious - if nothing else, I would
> expect that you'll get *more* cross-CPU traffic that way, since the CPU
> where final fput() runs will correlate only weakly (if at all) with one
> where open() had been done.  So you are getting more cachelines bouncing.
> I want to see the numbers for this one, and on different kinds of loads,
> but as it is I've very sceptical.  BTW, could you try to collect stats
> along the lines of "CPU #i has done N_{i,j} removals from sb list for
> files that had been in list #j"?
> 
> Splitting files_lock on per-sb basis might be an interesting variant, too.

We should just kill files_lock and s_files completely.  The remaining
user are may remount r/o checks, and with counters in place not only on
the vfsmount but also on the superblock we can kill fs_may_remount_ro in
it's current form.  The only interesting bit left after that is
mark_files_ro which is so buggy that I'd prefer to kill it including the
underlying functionality.
--
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/