From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261681AbTJMLFQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:05:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261683AbTJMLFP (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:05:15 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:49062 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261681AbTJMLFL (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:05:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 04:08:21 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: kk@sw.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Invalidate_inodes can be very slow Message-Id: <20031013040821.19b3745e.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20031013095347.GF16158@holomorphy.com> References: <200310131318.09234.kk@sw.ru> <20031013095347.GF16158@holomorphy.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > Untested brute-force forward port to 2.6.0-test7-bk4. No idea if the > locking is correct or if list movement is done in all needed places. My preferred approach to this would be to move all the global inode lists into the superblock so both they and inode_lock become per-sb. It is a big change though. And, amazingly, nobody has yet hit sufficient inode_lock contention to warrant it. Yes, I bet that this search will hurt like hell on a really big box which has thousands of auto-expiring NFS mounts. Please test your patch and I'll queue it up while we think about it some more.