From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 11 May 2002 22:07:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 11 May 2002 22:07:43 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:11532 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 11 May 2002 22:07:43 -0400 Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 03:07:42 +0100 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Dave Hansen Cc: Matthew Wilcox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: fs/locks.c BKL removal Message-ID: <20020512030742.P32414@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <3CDC4037.8040104@us.ibm.com> <20020511204551.M32414@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <3CDDC7F0.6010407@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 06:40:00PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > Do you really think a single lock is the way to go? Maybe I'm just > paranoid, but somebody is going to run into a locking bottleneck here > eventually. I also just don't like global locks. Well, we have a global entity being protected -- the file_lock_list. Clearly we don't want to use one of the existing per-inode semaphores since semaphores have a noted bad effect on both benchmarks and real-world scenarios. And I don't think introducing a new per-inode lock would really be welcome. > I'll ask our benchmarking team if they have test suites for file > locking. I crossing my fingers. Cool, thanks. -- Revolutions do not require corporate support.