From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [patch 00/27] [rfc] vfs scalability patchset Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:31:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20090425193133.GB8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20090425012020.457460929@suse.de> <20090425041829.GX8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20090425080143.GA29033@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , npiggin@suse.de, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:42282 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753018AbZDYTbl (ORCPT ); Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:31:41 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 12:08:16PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Can we? My first glance at that code I asked myself if we could examine > i_writecount, instead of going to the file. My impression was that we > were deliberately only counting persistent write references from files No, there's nothing deliberate about that. The code is simply wrong; some of that crap had been fixed with mnt_want_write series, but the rest... > instead of transient write references. As only the persistent write > references matter. Transient write references can at least in theory > be flushed as the filesystem is remounting read-only. No. It's far too painful to do and no fs is doing that. You are looking for deliberate behaviour in a place where we have a half-fixed pile of races.