On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:41:40 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:09:01AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Having a global lock that protects all of this code is a clear
> > scalability problem. Instead of doing that, move most of the code to be
> > protected by the i_lock
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:09:01AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Having a global lock that protects all of this code is a clear
> scalability problem. Instead of doing that, move most of the code to be
> protected by the i_lock instead.
>
> The exceptions are the global lists that
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:09:01AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
Having a global lock that protects all of this code is a clear
scalability problem. Instead of doing that, move most of the code to be
protected by the i_lock instead.
The exceptions are the global lists that file_lock-fl_link sits
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:41:40 -0400
J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:09:01AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
Having a global lock that protects all of this code is a clear
scalability problem. Instead of doing that, move most of the code to be
protected by
Having a global lock that protects all of this code is a clear
scalability problem. Instead of doing that, move most of the code to be
protected by the i_lock instead.
The exceptions are the global lists that file_lock->fl_link sits on.
Those still need a global lock of some sort, so wrap just
Having a global lock that protects all of this code is a clear
scalability problem. Instead of doing that, move most of the code to be
protected by the i_lock instead.
The exceptions are the global lists that file_lock-fl_link sits on.
Those still need a global lock of some sort, so wrap just
6 matches
Mail list logo