Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161000AbWBVRvG (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:51:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161143AbWBVRvG (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:51:06 -0500 Received: from omx1-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.179.11]:20936 "EHLO omx1.americas.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161000AbWBVRvE (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:51:04 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:50:30 -0600 From: Robin Holt To: John McCutchan Cc: Robin Holt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rml@novell.com, arnd@arndb.de, hch@lst.de, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: udevd is killing file write performance. Message-ID: <20060222175030.GB30556@lnx-holt.americas.sgi.com> References: <20060222134250.GE20786@lnx-holt.americas.sgi.com> <1140626903.13461.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1140626903.13461.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1476 Lines: 31 On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:48:23AM -0500, John McCutchan wrote: > On Wed, 2006-22-02 at 07:42 -0600, Robin Holt wrote: > > > > I know _VERY_ little about filesystems. udevd appears to be looking > > at /etc/udev/rules.d. This bumps inotify_watches to 1. The file > > being written is on an xfs filesystem mounted at a different mountpoint. > > Could the inotify flag be moved from a global to a sb (or something > > finer) point and therefore avoid taking the dentry->d_lock when there > > is no possibility of a watch event being queued. > > We could do this, and avoid the problem, but only in this specific > scenario. The file being written is on a different mountpoint but whats > to stop a different app from running inotify on that mount point? > Perhaps the program could be altered instead? Looking at fsnotify_access() I think we could hit the same scenario. Are you proposing we alter any appliction where multiple threads read a single data file to first make a hard link to that data file and each read from their private copy? I don't think that is a very reasonable suggestion. Let me reiterate, I know _VERY_ little about filesystems. Can the dentry->d_lock be changed to a read/write lock? Thanks, Robin - 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/