Re: dentry bloat.
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Sat May 08 2004 - 14:29:24 EST
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 May 2004, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I think we can simply take ->d_lock a bit earlier in __d_lookup. That will
> > serialise against d_move(), fixing the problem which you mention, and also
> > makes d_movecount go away.
> If you do that, RCU basically loses most of it's meaning.
> You'll be taking a lock for - and dirtying in the cache - every single
> dentry on the hash chain, which is pretty much guaranteed to be slower
> than just taking the dcache_lock _once_, even if that one jumps across
> CPU's a lot.
Can take the lock after comparing the hash and the parent?
And if we recheck those after locking, d_movecount is unneeded?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/