Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 14:56:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 14:56:38 -0500 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:221 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 14:56:30 -0500 Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 14:25:49 -0500 (EST) From: Alexander Viro To: Linus Torvalds cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.2.19pre3 and poor reponse to RT-scheduled processes? In-Reply-To: <92lbt4$rd$1@penguin.transmeta.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 30 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > There are other, equally likely, candidates for these kinds of stalls: > > - filesystem locks. Especially the ext2 superblock lock. You can easily > hit this one, as some ext2 functions actually do a lot of IO while > holding the lock. Hmm... In 2.4 we can make the situation with superblock lock on ext2 much better. I didn't go the whole way down to spinlocks, but right now I'm sitting on a box with modified ext2 that doesn't do _any_ IO in protected parts of ext2_new_inode()/ext2_new_block(). I can try to extract the relevant parts of the patch if you are interested (it also got directories-in-pagecache stuff and better SMP threading of get_block()/truncate()). The thing seems to be working fine and I see no serious contention on lock_super(). Dunno if it's worth doing before 2.4.0, but since it has zero impact on the rest of tree (OK, zero except that write_on_page() had been exported, but I could trivially get rid of that)... Maybe 2.4.early would be a good idea. Cheers, Al - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/