Re: [PATCH v2] fs/ext4: increase parallelism in updating ext4 orphan list

[Jan Kara]

On Tue 15-04-14 10:27:46, Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke wrote:
> On 04/14/2014 11:40 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> >   Thanks for trying that out! Can you please send me a patch you have been
> > testing? Because it doesn't quite make sense to me why using i_mutex should
> > be worse than using hashed locks...
> >
> 
> Thanks again for the comments.
> 
> Since i_mutex is also used for serialization in other operations on an
> inode, in the case that the i_mutex is not held  using it for
> serialization could cause contention with other operations on the inode.
> As the number shows substantial instances of orphan add or delete calls
> without holding the i_mutex, I presume the performance degradation is due
> to the contention.
  I have checked the source and I didn't find many places where i_mutex was
not held. But maybe I'm wrong. That's why I wanted to see the patch where
you are using i_mutex instead of hashed mutexes and which didn't perform
good enough.

> As for the patch, could you please let me know if you need the patch
> using i_mutex or the patch I'm planning to submit.  If it's the latter,
> I'm thinking of go ahead and resubmit it.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/