On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 03:27 -0400, Shaya Potter wrote: > this is a first attempt at fixing up branching race conditions in > unionfs, it's by no means complete. > > 1) It introduce a rw semaphore. The semantic is, that "write" is an > operation that can change the branching structure. while "read" is > operations that depend on the branching structure not changing. > > 2) I've removed the use of lock_super() in place of read/write locks as > that would possibly kill performance due to being unable to run multiple > branchput/gets at once and forcing a process to sleep. I haven't > touched all the places that matter, just putting this out for > discussion. > > my read_lock/unlock's around branchput in commonfops.c should probably > be made much wider, but again this is just for proof of concept. Shaya,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this basically looks like a performance improvement more than a functionality fix. Have you actually seen enough contention on the lock super to justify adding a distinct lock? If so, do you have some numbers that demonstrate the difference? Charles _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list unionfs@mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
