Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266547AbUIISZR (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:25:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266491AbUIISYG (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:24:06 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:57534 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266508AbUIISIq (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:08:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:06:22 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, dev@sw.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] adding per sb inode list to make invalidate_inodes() faster Message-Id: <20040909110622.78028ae6.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040909171927.GU3106@holomorphy.com> References: <4140791F.8050207@sw.ru> <20040909171927.GU3106@holomorphy.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1621 Lines: 37 William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 08:51:45AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Hmm.. I don't mind the approach per se, but I get very nervous about the > > fact that I don't see any initialization of "inode->i_sb_list". > > Yes, you do a > > list_add(&inode->i_sb_list, &sb->s_inodes); > > in new_inode(), but there are a ton of users that allocate inodes other > > ways, and more importantly, even if this was the only allocation function, > > you do various "list_del(&inode->i_sb_list)" things which leaves the inode > > around but with an invalid superblock list. > > So at the very _least_, you should document why all of this is safe very > > carefully (I get nervous about fundamental FS infrastructure changes), and > > it should be left to simmer in -mm for a longish time to make sure it > > really works.. > > Call me chicken. > > Some version of this patch has been in 2.6.x-mm for a long while. One year. > I've > not reviewed this version of the patch for differences with the -mm > code. It would probably be best to look at the -mm bits as they've had > sustained exposure for quite some time. Yes. I have not merged it up because it seems rather dopey to add eight bytes to the inode to speed up something as rare as umount. Is there a convincing reason for proceeding with the change? - 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/