From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754959AbZDYFfb (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:35:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752154AbZDYFfV (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:35:21 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:51682 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751857AbZDYFfT (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:35:19 -0400 To: npiggin@suse.de Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Alan Cox References: <20090425012020.457460929@suse.de> <20090425012209.061706790@suse.de> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:35:10 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20090425012209.061706790@suse.de> (npiggin@suse.de's message of "Sat\, 25 Apr 2009 11\:20\:21 +1000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-XM-SPF: eid=;;;mid=;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=67.169.126.145;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.169.126.145 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: npiggin@suse.de, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa03 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;npiggin@suse.de X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Report: * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 1.5 XMNoVowels Alpha-numberic number with no vowels * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0050] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa03 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 XM_SPF_Neutral SPF-Neutral * 0.4 UNTRUSTED_Relay Comes from a non-trusted relay Subject: Re: [patch 01/27] fs: cleanup files_lock X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:26:12 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org npiggin@suse.de writes: > Lock tty_files with tty_mutex, provide helpers to manipulate the per-sb > files list, and unexport the files_lock spinlock. This conflicts a bit with some of my ongoing work, which is generalizing the file list to make it more useful and makes the tty case much less of a special case. Do you know if the performance improvement would be anywhere near as good if file_list and file_list_lock becoming per inode? Do you have any idea what the performance improvement with changing the file_list_lock is? > Index: linux-2.6/fs/open.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/open.c > +++ linux-2.6/fs/open.c > @@ -828,7 +828,7 @@ static struct file *__dentry_open(struct > f->f_path.mnt = mnt; > f->f_pos = 0; > f->f_op = fops_get(inode->i_fop); > - file_move(f, &inode->i_sb->s_files); > + file_sb_list_add(f, inode->i_sb); You can make this just: if (!special_file(inode->i_mode)) file_add(f, &inode->i_files); And save yourself a lot of complexity. Eric