From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [patch 29/52] fs: icache lock i_count Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:41:06 +1000 Message-ID: <20100705224106.GZ24712@dastard> References: <20100624030212.676457061@suse.de> <20100624030730.245992858@suse.de> <20100630072702.GF24712@dastard> <20100630120502.GB21358@laptop> <20100702190355.2b3fe6d2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100703034123.GE11732@laptop> <20100702213149.f0ca2f72.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20100703050652.GF11732@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, John Stultz , Frank Mayhar To: Nick Piggin Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100703050652.GF11732@laptop> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 03:06:52PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > So it makes a lot of sense to have a lock to rule the inode (as opposed > to now we have a lock to rule *all* inodes). I don't disagree with this approach - I object to the fact that you repurpose an existing lock and change it's locking rules to "rule the inode". We don't have any one lock that "rules the inode", anyway, so adding a new "i_list_lock" for the new VFS level locking strategies makes it a lot more self-contained. Fundamentally I'm less concerned about the additional memory usage than I am about having landmines planted around i_lock... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com