From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21175C2BBCF for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 15:00:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB16423B08 for ; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 15:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727375AbgLRPAY (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:00:24 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36528 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726057AbgLRPAX (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 10:00:23 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-x734.google.com (mail-qk1-x734.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::734]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72F1DC0617B0; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 06:59:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk1-x734.google.com with SMTP id i67so2155089qkf.11; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 06:59:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=btTFe9SQJ12UsM8X01XRMs1GCaQg0iWb0+ZNquj0Yho=; b=e4txPl7w1XfT0AF9f9WIr694+OCREoNz2aoMqbtbBWuGj4WqmSno11qRfiOxyIYfAP pQOvE/5DaDl7dwc/TdNY3eGa1xUmxEz1rFlefvLY/wK1Zcg4S5jjtwsJj/sSuR1OxHqQ 8FgoQY7tq3utNH9sDFqGDURPi9fkjpoT5AvRmRLbWbW8Et2DUz/MEINM8z2ACRzDkK6y pUHyLLcWXdDeA/NnV/lx5G3v1Ld2x6fHThU1XRiYSeCSk5Sfr08p2HXHV48atgZrcaeJ MnxvomDQxBsudSzDpdeQ5FSyJQkcIKe5e/jChNMPiHBhQCpJof68XQgX0RADrRZcsOqU w2/A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=btTFe9SQJ12UsM8X01XRMs1GCaQg0iWb0+ZNquj0Yho=; b=MfVY0D2K/n80FOGaYiiZcRyw6nXg3qH7WmTa8AyJlNxVrjzFWjeOMDdteCB/hoHA1d ZMf5AxBfj3IKckIj0o/Yu08ZTsIPPXptSJ9VE9g+wgDetkScI1XkDEFVqVK3NVy+dy3n 7l2XodkqPz/XkWc/314Zk3ixKHM5jQ4Wkb2qShtUDn6EzZliflPM7XJyHjKG8KodY2qz UVWjbOutziMMjVtqjUrpjtbO+HREkpb62dx6txGCB0aKn71pbOqjWgxm5luIoXJu+sif +x0iNFeI1biFhsINJmKCttVY8O23PZO60W/h+fME1han0S60qmPB5lrh2QWa/obWjBgV gqmA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532rU+UN6PBJdMKVcQvKB9MIiKvnUQZwWmsYagrTBfzlKtEMhGe3 ktZBmal3+hcy2J43O0RTwGU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwaHLdTGSrENguGze1yXBIkNLF8wP/RHMekAKxikbNXyIEErjFzKuRPIKoM+wyg1LyWwA536A== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:158e:: with SMTP id d14mr5001846qkk.358.1608303582534; Fri, 18 Dec 2020 06:59:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2600:380:bc52:ed25:f121:8f09:67ad:9838]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d25sm5675018qkl.97.2020.12.18.06.59.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 18 Dec 2020 06:59:41 -0800 (PST) Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 09:59:07 -0500 From: Tejun Heo To: Ian Kent Cc: Fox Chen , Greg KH , akpm@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, miklos@szeredi.hu, ricklind@linux.vnet.ibm.com, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency improvement Message-ID: References: <3e97846b52a46759c414bff855e49b07f0d908fc.camel@themaw.net> <67a3012a6a215001c8be9344aee1c99897ff8b7e.camel@themaw.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <67a3012a6a215001c8be9344aee1c99897ff8b7e.camel@themaw.net> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 03:36:21PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > Sounds like your saying it would be ok to add a lock to the > attrs structure, am I correct? Yeah, adding a lock to attrs is a lot less of a problem and it looks like it's gonna have to be either that or hashed locks, which might actually make sense if we're worried about the size of attrs (I don't think we need to). Thanks. -- tejun