From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266194AbUBKUjf (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:39:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266192AbUBKUjf (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:39:35 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:59108 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266189AbUBKUjd (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:39:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:39:14 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Ingo Molnar Cc: jamie@shareable.org, viro@math.psu.edu, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: open-scale-2.6.2-A0 Message-Id: <20040211123914.7372625d.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040211122753.GA15129@elte.hu> References: <20040211115828.GA13868@elte.hu> <20040211122031.GC15127@mail.shareable.org> <20040211122753.GA15129@elte.hu> 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 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Jamie Lokier wrote: > > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > i've attached an obvious scalability improvement for write()s. We in > > > essence used a system-global lock for every open(WRITE) - argh! > > > > I wonder if the "rip the second arsehole" is there for a reason. > > these days i dont think the comment is justified. It was kinda funny though. > > Does this scalability improvement make any measured difference in any > > conceivable application, or is it just making struct inode larger? > > i've not added any new lock, i'm merely reusing the existing ->i_lock. > So there's no data or code bloat whatsoever. yes, that's why I called it i_lock and not i_blocks_lock. i_lock's mandate is "an innermost lock for protecting stuff in the inode". This is an appropriate use of it.