Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752772Ab2KXXXQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:23:16 -0500 Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46]:62480 "EHLO mail-oa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752621Ab2KXXXP (ORCPT ); Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:23:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20121120180949.GG1408@quack.suse.cz> <50AF7901.20401@kernel.dk> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:23:14 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Recent kernel "mount" slow From: Jeff Chua To: Mikulas Patocka Cc: Jens Axboe , Lai Jiangshan , Linus Torvalds , Jan Kara , lkml , linux-fsdevel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 875 Lines: 20 On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > So it's better to slow down mount. I am quite proud of the linux boot time pitting against other OS. Even with 10 partitions. Linux can boot up in just a few seconds, but now you're saying that we need to do this semaphore check at boot up. By doing so, it's inducing additional 4 seconds during boot up. What about moving the locking mechanism to the "mount" program itself? Won't that be more feasible? As for the cases of simultaneous mounts, it's usually administrator that's doing something bad. I would say this is not a kernel issue. Jeff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/