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 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 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 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,
> > >
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
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
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
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 places which
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 05:31:02PM +0800,
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 +1000, Dave
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,
they are such
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
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. The
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 tested
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
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
>
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
filesystems
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 barrier
20 matches
Mail list logo
