From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support features in larger inode Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:21:21 +0200 Message-ID: <1184494881.5284.92.camel@lappy> References: <1183275482.4010.133.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070710163247.5c8bfa3f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070713020529.1486491f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1184333621.20032.85.camel@twins> <20070713121259.20066d5b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070713214746.GH23255@mami.zabbo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andrew Morton , cmm@us.ibm.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft To: Zach Brown Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:36784 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757587AbXGOKVp (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jul 2007 06:21:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070713214746.GH23255@mami.zabbo.net> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 14:47 -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > Peter, do you have any interest in seeing how far we can get > at tracking lock_page()? I'm not holding my breath, but any little bit > would probably help. I ran headfirst into the fact the unlock_page() need not be called by the same task that did lock_page(). Esp IO-completion interrupts love to unlock pages they did not lock themselves. Not at all sure that is fixable, it seems to be the nature of the async structure of the problem :-(