From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: Inode Lock Scalability V7 (was V6) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:20:34 +1100 Message-ID: <20101021132034.GB13620@amd> References: <1287622186-1935-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20101021050422.GP32255@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Chinner Return-path: Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.141]:35433 "EHLO ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757923Ab0JUNUi (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:20:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101021050422.GP32255@dastard> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: It seems we are at an impasse. It doesn't help that you are ignoring the most important concerns I've been raising with these patches. The locking model and the patch split up. I'd really like not to get deadlocked on this (haha), so please let's try to debate points. I've tried to reply to each point others have questioned me about, whether I agree or not I've given reasons. So, you know my objections to this approach already... I've got an update on my patchset coming, so I'd like to get some discussion going. I've cut out some of the stuff from mine so we don't get bogged down in boring things like per-zone locking or changing of the hash table data structure. Thanks, Nick