From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: Inode Lock Scalability V7 (was V6)
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:48:12 +1100
Message-ID: <20101022044812.GB6899@amd>
References: <1287622186-1935-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
 <20101021050422.GP32255@dastard>
 <20101021132034.GB13620@amd>
 <20101021235227.GI12506@dastard>
 <20101022004540.GA5920@amd>
 <20101022022010.GG19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20101022023444.GA6573@amd>
 <20101022024152.GA6618@amd>
 <20101022024834.GA6708@amd>
 <20101022031211.GI19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.145]:60201 "EHLO
	ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751928Ab0JVEsl (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:48:41 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101022031211.GI19804@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 04:12:11AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 01:48:34PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 01:41:52PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > The locking in my lock break patch is ugly and wrong, yes. But it is
> > > always an intermediate step. I want to argue that with RCU inode work
> > > *anyway*, there is not much point to reducing the strength of the
> > > i_lock property because locking can be cleaned up nicely and still
> > > keep i_lock ~= inode_lock (for a single inode).
> > 
> > The other thing is that with RCU, the idea of locking an object in
> > the data structure with a per object lock actually *is* much more
> > natural. It's hard to do it properly with just a big data structure
> > lock.
> > 
> > If I want to take a reference to an inode from a data structre, how
> > to do it with RCU?
> > 
> > rcu_read_lock()
> > list_for_each(inode) {
> >   spin_lock(&big_lock); /* oops, might as well not even use RCU then */
> >   if (!unhashed) {
> >     iget();
> >   }
> > }
> 
> Huh?  Why the hell does it have to be a big lock?  You grab ->i_lock,
> then look at the damn thing.  You also grab it on eviction from the
> list - *inside* the lock used for serializing the write access to
> your RCU list.

That sucks, it requires more acquiring and dropping of i_lock and
it hits single threaded performance. I looked at that.

But it also loses the i_lock = inode_lock property.