Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761826AbZDAX75 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:59:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753716AbZDAX7q (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:59:46 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f165.google.com ([209.85.219.165]:38205 "EHLO mail-ew0-f165.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752858AbZDAX7p (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:59:45 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=jkw3+6orlzT1gMApr1ShklX+wJrh46+qDD7hJ8sXTiLfcVMFUUiuonB3NDxKloiEsw XV0fkczKacMadYuG/oaoIJKgaUbuy1lwBYd+H3UNFrteG8FDQLVaipyk/KuwJiBhkNP/ A5qm2kTWKY1th2du0GpAQpqcWcZeKcaMS2SBc= Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 01:59:39 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Bron Gondwana Cc: Ingo Molnar , Jeff Mahoney , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , ReiserFS Development List Subject: Re: [patch 00/35] Jeff's ReiserFS Patch Queue Message-ID: <20090401235937.GA6131@nowhere> References: <20090330180215.951354436@suse.com> <20090401161657.GA13802@elte.hu> <49D39642.9070606@suse.com> <20090401163407.GE22517@elte.hu> <20090401165134.GA5924@nowhere> <20090401221850.GB6776@brong.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090401221850.GB6776@brong.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1540 Lines: 46 On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 09:18:50AM +1100, Bron Gondwana wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 06:51:36PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > I'll let Frederic describe it but AFAIK the patch is working fine > > > with the BKL as a mutex and no lockdep complaints or lockups. The > > > main focus is now on finding the performance affecting spots, > > > because Frederic's main desktop is on reiserfs and he does not > > > accept a slowdown :) > > > > Hehe :-) > > No actually I would accept a tiny slowdown but I fear that the common > > reiserfs users wouldn't. > > We run big(ish) imap servers with up to 80 reiserfs partitions > spread over a bunch of SCSI or SAS attached external drive units. > I'm actually surprised that the BKL isn't causing us much pain > (load is amazingly low considering how many users are on these > boxes - at least now that we have 32Gb RAM and 64 bit kernels). > > Are you still using an "entire reiserfs subsystem" mutex, or > per-filesystem locking? If it's per filesystem, then I suspect > we'll be big fans! Yeah. It is per superblock :-) Frederic. > > > I'm still working on this and once it's ready enough for an RFC patch, > > I'll explain how is done the conversion to a mutex. > > > > Stay tuned. > > Sure will! > > Thanks, > > Bron. -- 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/