xfs-masters
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [xfs-masters] RFC: Fix f_flags races without the BKL

To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [xfs-masters] RFC: Fix f_flags races without the BKL
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:04:39 +0100
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Al@xxxxxxxxxxx, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20081230055956.1747bd86@tpl>
References: <20081229041352.6bbdf57c@tpl> <20081229124151.GA29634@xxxxxxxxxx> <20081229152732.GH496@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081230055956.1747bd86@tpl>
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 05:59:56AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:27:32 +0100
> Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I would prefer O_LOCK_FLAGS bit too. The global lock is not very nice
> > and I don't doubt someone will come up with a workload which
> > pounds on it.
> 
> Seems hard to imagine that it would be worse than the longstanding BKL
> situation.  That said, the global lock is clearly an unsubtle approach,
> and people don't like it.  I'd hoped to slip something quick through
> the merge window, but that seems unlikely, especially, since I'm
> allegedly on vacation.  I'll forget this patch for now and revisit it
> next week.

The global lock is an improvement over the current situation, so given
that we don't have any better counter-proposals we should put it in for
2.6.29.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>