From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/17] fs: icache lock inode hash Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:13:48 +1000 Message-ID: <20100930061348.GY5665@dastard> References: <1285762729-17928-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1285762729-17928-4-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100929215220.8b5f3910.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Return-path: Received: from bld-mail17.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.102]:57366 "EHLO mail.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754136Ab0I3GNw (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 02:13:52 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100929215220.8b5f3910.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:52:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:18:35 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote: > > > DEFINE_SPINLOCK(inode_lock); > > DEFINE_SPINLOCK(sb_inode_list_lock); > > +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(inode_hash_lock); > > I assume these all go away later on. If not, they'll probably all land > in the same cacheline! indeed, the hash lock goes away in this series, as does the inode_lock. I'll check the other new locks don't land in the same cacheline. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com