Re: [PATCH] BKL: Remove BKL from isofs

[Jan Kara]

 On Mon 20-09-10 13:13:11, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 20 September 2010, Jan Kara wrote:
> >   Hmm, looking through the code, I actually don't see a reason
> > why we should need any per-sb lock at all. The filesystem is always
> > read-only and we don't seem to have any global data structures that
> > change. But that needs some testing I guess - I'll try to do that.
> 
> Ok, great! The BKL was basically as wrong as the global mutex protecting
> the operations anyway, because it does not document what data is
> actually getting protected in any of all the drivers that I'm converting
> to a private mutex.
> 
> Given more time for code inspection and some testing, you can probably
> come up with a good explanation why the BKL is not needed in all those
> places, but since nobody ever bothered to do this for the last decade
> for all these drivers, my approach was to simply prove (in a rather lose
> sense) that I can't make it worse by converting to a mutex.
  Attached is an obvious patch with some reasoning. I've also run for about
half an hour 10 parallel tar processes continuously reading the isofs image
in a loop. In parallel was running an infinite loop with "echo 2
>/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" so directory entries were constantly reread from
the filesystem. The whole thing was running inside KVM so the fs image was
actually cached in memory. The machine has 8 CPUs so I think reasonable
paralelism has happened and all seemed happy. So I think the patch should
be safe to put into some tree for testing in inclusion...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR