Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:34994 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964922Ab2FHWDA (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 18:03:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:02:53 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Alexander Viro , Linus Torvalds , Boaz Harrosh , Tao Ma , Nick Piggin , "Dmitry V. Levin" , v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, samba-technical@lists.samba.org, codalist@TELEMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu, ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org, osd-dev@open-osd.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, jfs-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net, logfs@logfs.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ntfs-dev@lists.sourceforge.net, ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com, reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH, RESEND] fs: push rcu_barrier() from deactivate_locked_super() to filesystems Message-Id: <20120608150253.e42464a6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1339191663-17693-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> References: <1339191663-17693-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 00:41:03 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov" wrote: > There's no reason to call rcu_barrier() on every deactivate_locked_super(). > We only need to make sure that all delayed rcu free inodes are flushed > before we destroy related cache. > > Removing rcu_barrier() from deactivate_locked_super() affects some > fas paths. E.g. on my machine exit_group() of a last process in IPC > namespace takes 0.07538s. rcu_barrier() takes 0.05188s of that time. What an unpleasant patch. Is final-process-exiting-ipc-namespace a sufficiently high-frequency operation to justify the change? I don't really understand what's going on here. Are you saying that there is some filesystem against which we run deactivate_locked_super() during exit_group(), and that this filesystem doesn't use rcu-freeing of inodes? The description needs this level of detail, please. The implementation would be less unpleasant if we could do the rcu_barrier() in kmem_cache_destroy(). I can't see a way of doing that without adding a dedicated slab flag, which would require editing all the filesystems anyway. (kmem_cache_destroy() already has an rcu_barrier(). Can we do away with the private rcu games in the vfs and switch to SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU?)