From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751865AbWJAEFU (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Oct 2006 00:05:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751870AbWJAEFU (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Oct 2006 00:05:20 -0400 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.10.4]:23795 "EHLO pat.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751865AbWJAEFT (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Oct 2006 00:05:19 -0400 Subject: RE: Postal 56% waits for flock_lock_file_wait From: Trond Myklebust To: "Ananiev, Leonid I" Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:05:07 -0400 Message-Id: <1159675508.5453.3.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-3.168, required 12, autolearn=disabled, AWL 1.70, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 0.14, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL -5.00) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 21:26 +0400, Ananiev, Leonid I wrote: > > On which filesystem were the above results obtained if it was not > ext2? > The default ext3 fs was used. > > > All the above results are telling you is that your test involves > several > > processes contending for the same lock, and so all of them barring the > > one process that actually holds the lock are idle. > > Yes. It is flock_lock_file_wait. That is the function which causes the sleep, yes. So what is your gripe? The kernel would appear to be doing exactly what is expected of it. Trond