From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755704AbZDZDtu (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:49:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755349AbZDZDte (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:49:34 -0400 Received: from THUNK.ORG ([69.25.196.29]:60014 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754516AbZDZDtc (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:49:32 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Ext4 Developers List Cc: Linux Kernel Developers List , Christoph Hellwig , Al Viro Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Eliminate most lock_super() calls from ext4 Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:49:20 -0400 Message-Id: <1240717765-16572-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.5.6.3 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@mit.edu X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 08:40:47PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > ext3/4 internal bits? Doesn't seem to be used for any journal related > activity but mostly as protection against resizing (the whole lock_super > usage in ext3/4 looks odd to me, interestingly there's none at all in > ext2. Maybe someone of the extN crowd should audit and get rid of it in > favour of a better fs-specific lock) Here are some patches which eliminate most of the lock_super() and unlock_super() calls from ext4. The last remaining calls are designed to proect against another CPU calling write_super(), which is the original intended use. If these patches work out, we can backport these patches to ext3. Comments and review appreciated; thanks!! - Ted