From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [RFC v4 Patch 0/4] fs/inode.c: optimization for inode lock usage Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:17:18 -0600 Message-ID: <20120921121717.GB24919@parisc-linux.org> References: <1348219866-1799-1-git-send-email-yan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, dchinner@redhat.com, hch@infradead.org, jack@suse.cz, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Guo Chao Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1348219866-1799-1-git-send-email-yan@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:31:02PM +0800, Guo Chao wrote: > This patchset optimizes several places which take the per inode spin lock. > They have not been fully tested yet, thus they are marked as RFC. > > I do limited tests after all patches applied: use two 'find' to traverse the > filesystems and touch all files in parallel. This runs for several days in a > virtual machine, no suspicious log appears. Have you done any performance testing? Taking and releasing a lock which isn't contended is not particularly expensive. -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."