Re: [PATCH 0/17] fs: Inode cache scalability

[Dave Chinner]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 07:57:16PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > I've only ported the patches so far, without changing anything
> > significant other than the comit descriptions. One thing that has
> > stood out as I've done this is that the ordering of the patches is
> > not ideal, and some things (like the inode counters) are modified
> > multiple times through the patch set.  I'm quite happy to
> > reorder/rework the series to fix these problems if that is desired.
> 
> There's two obvious ordering issues: first the inode counters that you
> mentioned.  I think this is esialy fixed by simply dropping both batches
> messing with it - we should have the new locks protecting it in places once
> inode_lock is dropped.  The other one is the clean up inode reference
> counting patch, which sounds like it should be earlier in the series so
> that we have the helpers in place before touching all places that
> opencode an inode reference count increment.

Yeah, I thought you'd want that. ;) I'll reorder the iget helper
patch to be the first in the series which should reduce churn quite
a bit, and then convert both the nr_inode and nr_unused counters to
be per-cpu before any of the other modifications and so they can be
ignored completely in later patches.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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/