From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751298AbZC3MbT (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:31:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750891AbZC3MbK (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:31:10 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60499 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750718AbZC3MbJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:31:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:31:07 +0200 From: Nick Piggin To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 08/14] fs: scale inode alias list Message-ID: <20090330123107.GH31000@wotan.suse.de> References: <20090329155539.275927173@nick.local0.net> <20090329155749.455863870@nick.local0.net> <87zlf3mcg0.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87zlf3mcg0.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 02:18:07PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > npiggin@suse.de writes: > > > Add a new lock, dcache_inode_lock, to protect the inode's i_dentry list > > from concurrent modification. d_alias is also protected by d_lock. > > This would seem to ask for per object lock? Why not put it into the inode? Yes, this comes later in the last patch, because the first round is just meant to be as simple as possible, and making it per-inode is non-trivial (not too difficult, but just not totally trivial) for reasons given in that patch changelog.