From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755651Ab0INW0P (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:26:15 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:38972 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754728Ab0INW0N (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:26:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 18:26:12 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Nick Piggin Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: VFS scalability git tree Message-ID: <20100914222612.GA23871@infradead.org> References: <20100722190100.GA22269@amd> <20100730091226.GA10437@amd> <1280795279.3966.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20100803054400.GA7398@amd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100803054400.GA7398@amd> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nick, what's the plan for going ahead with the VFS scalability work? We're pretty late in the 2.6.36 cycle now and it would be good to get the next batch prepared and reivew so that it can get some testing in -next. As mentioned before my preference would be the inode lock splitup and related patches - they are relatively simple and we're already seeing workloads where inode_lock really hurts in the writeback code.