From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932866AbYEFU3n (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2008 16:29:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755268AbYEFU31 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2008 16:29:27 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:51089 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756259AbYEFU3Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2008 16:29:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 13:28:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Matthew Wilcox cc: Ingo Molnar , "J. Bruce Fields" , "Zhang, Yanmin" , LKML , Alexander Viro , Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: AIM7 40% regression with 2.6.26-rc1 In-Reply-To: <20080506164231.GK19219@parisc-linux.org> Message-ID: References: <1210052904.3453.30.camel@ymzhang> <20080506114449.GC32591@elte.hu> <20080506120934.GH19219@parisc-linux.org> <20080506162332.GI19219@parisc-linux.org> <20080506164231.GK19219@parisc-linux.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 6 May 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 09:36:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Hmm. Wouldn't it be nicer to make the lock be a per-inode thing? Or is > > there some user that doesn't have the inode info, or does anything that > > might cross inode boundaries? > > /proc/locks and deadlock detection both cross inode boundaries (and even > filesystem boundaries). The BKL-removal brigade tried this back in 2.4 > and the locking ended up scaling worse than just plonking a single > spinlock around the whole thing. Ok, no worries. Just as long as I know why it's a single lock. Looks ok to me, apart from the need for testing (and talking to NFS etc people). Linus