| To: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Remove l_flushsema |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:58:32 -0400 |
| Cc: | Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20080430104125.GM108924158@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20080430090502.GH14976@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080430104125.GM108924158@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) |
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 08:41:25PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > The only thing that I'm concerned about here is that this will > substantially increase the time the l_icloglock is held. This is > a severely contended lock on large cpu count machines and putting > the wakeup inside this lock will increase the hold time. > > I guess I can address this by adding a new lock for the waitqueue > in a separate patch set. waitqueues are loked internally and don't need synchronization. With a little bit of re-arranging the code the wake_up could probably be moved out of the critical section. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Remove l_flushsema, David Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Remove l_flushsema, David Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Remove l_flushsema, David Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Remove l_flushsema, David Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |