From: Joel Becker Subject: Re: i_mutex questions Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:05:53 -0700 Message-ID: <20110914000553.GA8761@noexit.corp.google.com> References: <4E6FA1F9.6080802@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110913190208.GD4635@noexit.corp.google.com> <4E6FD4F0.4000901@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ext4 Developers List , Ted Ts'o To: Allison Henderson Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:53816 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751055Ab1INAGK (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 20:06:10 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E6FD4F0.4000901@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 03:10:56PM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote: > Well, I actually already had a patch that was trying to use i_mutex > to solve this ([PATCH 4/6 v7] ext4: Lock i_mutex for punch hole). > But we decided not to apply it because of plans to reduce the usage > of i_mutex in the ext4 code. So I've been trying to figure out a > different way to solve this, but so far I haven't had a whole lot of > luck finding a solution that doesn't involve introducing a new > locking mechanism. So I wanted to check back here for more details > on what the plan for i_mutex is so I dont conflict with anything > that might already be going on. :) Sure ;-) If you find another mechanism that reduces contention but still plays well with read/write et al, please let us all know. Getting i_mutex out of read/write would be interesting. Joel -- "A narcissist is someone better looking than you are." - Gore Vidal http://www.jlbec.org/ jlbec@evilplan.org