From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/17] fs: Inode cache scalability Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:24:50 +1000 Message-ID: <20100930002450.GT5665@dastard> References: <1285762729-17928-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100929235716.GA18423@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100929235716.GA18423@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 07:57:16PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:18:32PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > I've only ported the patches so far, without changing anything > > significant other than the comit descriptions. One thing that has > > stood out as I've done this is that the ordering of the patches is > > not ideal, and some things (like the inode counters) are modified > > multiple times through the patch set. I'm quite happy to > > reorder/rework the series to fix these problems if that is desired. > > There's two obvious ordering issues: first the inode counters that you > mentioned. I think this is esialy fixed by simply dropping both batches > messing with it - we should have the new locks protecting it in places once > inode_lock is dropped. The other one is the clean up inode reference > counting patch, which sounds like it should be earlier in the series so > that we have the helpers in place before touching all places that > opencode an inode reference count increment. Yeah, I thought you'd want that. ;) I'll reorder the iget helper patch to be the first in the series which should reduce churn quite a bit, and then convert both the nr_inode and nr_unused counters to be per-cpu before any of the other modifications and so they can be ignored completely in later patches. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com