On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 04:59:55PM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 06:26:54PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > @@ -783,14 +783,19 @@ static void __wait_on_freeing_inode(struct inode
> > *inode);
> > static struct inode *find_inode(struct super_block *sb,
> >
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 06:26:54PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> @@ -783,14 +783,19 @@ static void __wait_on_freeing_inode(struct inode
> *inode);
> static struct inode *find_inode(struct super_block *sb,
> struct hlist_head *head,
> int
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:08:52PM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 04:28:12PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > Ah, this is intended to be a code clean patchset actually. I thought these
> > > locks are redundant in an obvious and trivial manner. If, on the
> > > contrary,
> > > t
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 04:28:12PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 02:12:05PM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 02:23:43PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:42:21AM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 08:49:12AM +100
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 02:12:05PM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 02:23:43PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:42:21AM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 08:49:12AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:31:02
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 02:23:43PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:42:21AM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 08:49:12AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:31:02PM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> > > > This patchset optimizes several pl
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:42:21AM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 08:49:12AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:31:02PM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> > > This patchset optimizes several places which take the per inode spin lock.
> > > They have not been fully
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 08:49:12AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:31:02PM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> > This patchset optimizes several places which take the per inode spin lock.
> > They have not been fully tested yet, thus they are marked as RFC.
>
> Inodes are RCU freed.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:31:02PM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> This patchset optimizes several places which take the per inode spin lock.
> They have not been fully tested yet, thus they are marked as RFC.
Inodes are RCU freed. The i_lock spinlock on the i_state field forms
part of the memory barrie
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:31:02PM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> This patchset optimizes several places which take the per inode spin lock.
> They have not been fully tested yet, thus they are marked as RFC.
>
> I do limited tests after all patches applied: use two 'find' to traverse the
> filesystem
This patchset optimizes several places which take the per inode spin lock.
They have not been fully tested yet, thus they are marked as RFC.
I do limited tests after all patches applied: use two 'find' to traverse the
filesystems and touch all files in parallel. This runs for several days in a
11 matches
Mail list logo
