From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Eliminate most lock_super() calls from ext4
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:49:20 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1240717765-16572-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> (raw)
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 08:40:47PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> ext3/4 internal bits? Doesn't seem to be used for any journal related
> activity but mostly as protection against resizing (the whole lock_super
> usage in ext3/4 looks odd to me, interestingly there's none at all in
> ext2. Maybe someone of the extN crowd should audit and get rid of it in
> favour of a better fs-specific lock)
Here are some patches which eliminate most of the lock_super() and
unlock_super() calls from ext4. The last remaining calls are designed
to proect against another CPU calling write_super(), which is the
original intended use.
If these patches work out, we can backport these patches to ext3.
Comments and review appreciated; thanks!!
- Ted
next reply other threads:[~2009-04-26 3:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-26 3:49 Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2009-04-26 3:49 ` [PATCH 1/5] ext4: Avoid races caused by on-line resizing and SMP memory reordering Theodore Ts'o
2009-04-26 3:49 ` [PATCH 2/5] ext4: Remove outdated comment about lock_super() Theodore Ts'o
2009-04-26 3:49 ` [PATCH 3/5] ext4: ext4_mark_recovery_complete() doesn't need to use lock_super Theodore Ts'o
2009-04-26 3:49 ` [PATCH 4/5] ext4: Replace lock/unlock_super() with an explicit lock for the orphan list Theodore Ts'o
2009-04-26 3:49 ` [PATCH 5/5] ext4: Replace lock/unlock_super() with an explicit lock for resizing Theodore Ts'o
2009-04-28 16:02 ` Jan Kara
2009-04-28 15:52 ` [PATCH 4/5] ext4: Replace lock/unlock_super() with an explicit lock for the orphan list Jan Kara
2009-04-26 7:07 ` [PATCH 3/5] ext4: ext4_mark_recovery_complete() doesn't need to use lock_super Christoph Hellwig
2009-04-26 11:46 ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-26 11:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-04-28 16:13 ` [PATCH 2/5] ext4: Remove outdated comment about lock_super() Jan Kara
2009-04-28 16:23 ` [PATCH 1/5] ext4: Avoid races caused by on-line resizing and SMP memory reordering Jan Kara
2009-04-28 17:14 ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-29 9:28 ` Jan Kara
2009-05-01 13:55 ` [PATCH v2] " Theodore Ts'o
2009-05-03 17:08 ` Jan Kara
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=1240717765-16572-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).