Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264893AbTFLQjm (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:39:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264894AbTFLQjm (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:39:42 -0400 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.105]:21499 "EHLO e5.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264893AbTFLQjl (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:39:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:25:59 +0530 From: Dipankar Sarma To: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Cc: Trond Myklebust , John M Flinchbaugh , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Maneesh Soni Subject: Re: 2.5.70-bk16: nfs crash Message-ID: <20030612165559.GE1438@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: dipankar@in.ibm.com References: <20030612125630.GA19842@butterfly.hjsoft.com> <20030612135254.GA2482@in.ibm.com> <16104.40370.828325.379995@charged.uio.no> <20030612155345.GB1438@in.ibm.com> <20030612163045.GK6754@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030612163045.GK6754@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1390 Lines: 32 On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 05:30:45PM +0100, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:23:45PM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > > > Lockfree d_lookup() gives us significant benefits in larger > > SMP machines. > > I wonder if they outweight debugging time wasted after any change... Several sets of numbers have been published in lkml on this. I will work on sending out my updates to the vfs locking document you wrote ASAP. AFAICS, most dcache APIs work as is despite lockfree lookup. As long as we follow those rules, we should be ok. > > Note that for vfsmounts proposed RCU patch had been utterly useless - > practically all improvements had been from separate lock for vfsmounts > (see akpm tree). Yes and that is why Maneesh's patch had two parts. In that case benefit came from reducing acquisition of dcache_lock by the first part itself - using a separate lock for vfsmounts. It does not seem possible to split up dcache_lock any further without very significant changes in vfs. The acquisition of vfsmount_lock by itself was not significant enough to really warrant lockfree lookup. Thanks Dipankar - 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/