Hi Mark, Mark Fasheh wrote: > On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 10:39:39AM +0800, Tao Ma wrote: >>>>> Or are you trying to protect xattr against itself? If that's the case, >>>>> you >>>>> could push this lock up to the top and take it around entire operations. >>>> Actually I am trying to protect xattr read/write by this semaphore, >>>> since we found a bug about it. >>>> http://oss.oracle.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=990 >>>> >>>> So I need change comment about xattr semaphore. >>>> /* protects extended attribute change on this inode */ >>> You could, or how about we just take i_mutex at the top of our xattr >>> operations for now? If we need the extra performance that more complicated >>> locking gives us, we can add this later. >> We can't use i_mutex because of the performance issue. And actually >> xattr_sem is done by me at the very beginning and I think it should be >> included in Tiger's patch, so asked him to merge it to his patch. ;) >> I originally used i_mutex in get and list to protect xattr, but as >> tristan tested the patch, he told me that the performance is very bad >> compared with ext3, so I looked at how ext3 implemented it and there >> comes out the usage of xattr_sem. > > Ok, if that's the case then we can certainly keep xattr_sem. I'm curious > though - what tests are we talking about here? http://oss.oracle.com/osswiki/OCFS2/XattrTest
btw, tristan.ye from oracle will focus on ocfs2 test in the following year. Thank you, tristan. Regards, Tao _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
