From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/19] fs: do not assign default i_ino in new_inode
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:09:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1287220153.2799.101.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1287216853-17634-20-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
Le samedi 16 octobre 2010 à 19:14 +1100, Dave Chinner a écrit :
> From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>
> Instead of always assigning an increasing inode number in new_inode
> move the call to assign it into those callers that actually need it.
> For now callers that need it is estimated conservatively, that is
> the call is added to all filesystems that do not assign an i_ino
> by themselves. For a few more filesystems we can avoid assigning
> any inode number given that they aren't user visible, and for others
> it could be done lazily when an inode number is actually needed,
> but that's left for later patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
I wonder if adding a flag in super_block to explicitely say :
"I dont need new_inode() allocates a i_ino for my new inode, because
I'll take care of this myself later"
would be safer, permiting each fs maintainer to assert the flag instead
of a single patch.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/19] fs: do not assign default i_ino in new_inode
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:09:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1287220153.2799.101.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1287216853-17634-20-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
Le samedi 16 octobre 2010 à 19:14 +1100, Dave Chinner a écrit :
> From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>
> Instead of always assigning an increasing inode number in new_inode
> move the call to assign it into those callers that actually need it.
> For now callers that need it is estimated conservatively, that is
> the call is added to all filesystems that do not assign an i_ino
> by themselves. For a few more filesystems we can avoid assigning
> any inode number given that they aren't user visible, and for others
> it could be done lazily when an inode number is actually needed,
> but that's left for later patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
I wonder if adding a flag in super_block to explicitely say :
"I dont need new_inode() allocates a i_ino for my new inode, because
I'll take care of this myself later"
would be safer, permiting each fs maintainer to assert the flag instead
of a single patch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-16 9:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-16 8:13 Inode Lock Scalability V4 Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:13 ` [PATCH 01/19] fs: switch bdev inode bdi's correctly Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 9:30 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-16 16:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-16 8:13 ` [PATCH 02/19] kernel: add bl_list Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 9:51 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-16 16:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-16 8:13 ` [PATCH 03/19] fs: Convert nr_inodes and nr_unused to per-cpu counters Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-16 10:04 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 10:04 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 10:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-16 10:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-16 17:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-17 1:09 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-17 1:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-17 2:16 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:13 ` [PATCH 04/19] fs: Implement lazy LRU updates for inodes Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 9:29 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-16 16:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-16 17:29 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-16 17:34 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 0:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-17 0:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-17 2:09 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 1:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:13 ` [PATCH 05/19] fs: inode split IO and LRU lists Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 06/19] fs: Clean up inode reference counting Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 07/19] exofs: use iput() for inode reference count decrements Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 08/19] fs: rework icount to be a locked variable Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 09/19] fs: Factor inode hash operations into functions Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 10/19] fs: Introduce per-bucket inode hash locks Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 11/19] fs: add a per-superblock lock for the inode list Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 12/19] fs: split locking of inode writeback and LRU lists Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 13/19] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the inode->i_lock Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 14/19] fs: introduce a per-cpu last_ino allocator Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 15/19] fs: Make iunique independent of inode_lock Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 16/19] fs: icache remove inode_lock Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 17/19] fs: Reduce inode I_FREEING and factor inode disposal Dave Chinner
2010-10-17 1:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-17 2:49 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 4:13 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-17 4:35 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 5:13 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 6:52 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-17 7:05 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 23:39 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-18 21:27 ` Sage Weil
2010-10-19 3:54 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 18/19] fs: split __inode_add_to_list Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 19/19] fs: do not assign default i_ino in new_inode Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 9:09 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2010-10-16 9:09 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-16 16:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-18 9:11 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-18 14:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-16 17:55 ` Inode Lock Scalability V4 Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 2:47 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-17 2:55 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 2:57 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 6:10 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-17 6:34 ` Nick Piggin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1287220153.2799.101.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.