From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: "Ananiev, Leonid I" <leonid.i.ananiev@intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <Linux-Kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Postal 56% waits for flock_lock_file_wait
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:11:21 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1159809081.5466.3.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3282373b0610020957u739392eekf8b78c7574e1a6e7@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 09:57 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> On 10/1/06, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote:
>
> >
> > I still don't get it. The job of the flock() system call is to sleep if
> > someone already holds the lock, and then grab the lock when it is
> > released. If that is not what the user expects, then the user has the
> > option of not calling flock(). This has nothing to do with open().
> >
> > Trond
> >
>
> If I understand Leonid correctly, I think what he is saying is ext3
> does not scale very well when you have a large number of processes
> acessing file system because of locks in journal. This is seen in
> the excessive idle time. By comparison, ext2 does not have this
> issue.
Ext3 does not use flock() in order to lock its journal. The performance
issues that he is seeing may well be due to the journalling, but that
has nothing to do with flock_lock_file_wait.
Cheers,
Trond
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-10-02 17:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-01 16:53 Ananiev, Leonid I
2006-10-01 17:18 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-10-02 16:57 ` Tim Chen
2006-10-02 17:11 ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
2006-10-02 17:51 ` Alan Cox
2006-10-02 17:40 ` Dave Jones
2006-10-02 22:00 ` Alan Cox
2006-10-02 21:40 ` Dave Jones
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-09-30 17:26 Ananiev, Leonid I
2006-10-01 4:05 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-09-30 5:25 Ananiev, Leonid I
2006-09-30 15:05 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-09-29 15:36 Ananiev, Leonid I
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1159809081.5466.3.camel@lade.trondhjem.org \
--to=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
--cc=Linux-Kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=leonid.i.ananiev@intel.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®