Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 05:05:42 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.35
Message-ID: <20100802090542.GA32322@infradead.org>
References: <AANLkTim8FALeVG+NPLNLEQChu=dPD=GHSpnxmZHYgsNx@mail.gmail.com>
 <20100802023322.GA19164@dastard>
 <AANLkTint_s6h_EC7mDiPsyxr=C0GSrnrgJYkCCU7JEtN@mail.gmail.com>
 <20100802055834.GB19164@dastard>
 <20100802075537.GC7841@amd>
 <20100802082428.GA23135@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100802082428.GA23135@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 902
Lines: 17

On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 04:24:28AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> .36.  I'd much rather see the inode_lock scaling or the lockless path
> walk going in before, but I haven't checked how complicated the
> reordering would be.  The lockless path walk also is only rather
> theoretically useful until we do ACL checks lockless as we're having
> ACLs enabled pretty much everywhere at least in the distros.

>From a quick look it seems like the inode_lock splitup can easily
be moved forward, and it would help us with doing some work on the
writeback side.  The problem is that it would need rebasing ontop
of both the vfs and writeback (aka block) trees.

--
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/