From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57D46B006A for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 04:20:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:20:39 +0200 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: Results of my VFS scaling evaluation. Message-ID: <20101010082038.GA17133@basil.fritz.box> References: <1286580739.3153.57.camel@bobble.smo.corp.google.com> <20101009031609.GK4681@dastard> <87y6a6fsg4.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20101010073732.GA4097@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101010073732.GA4097@infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Andi Kleen , Dave Chinner , Frank Mayhar , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mrubin@google.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk List-ID: > Certainly not for .37, where even the inode_lock splitup is pretty damn > later. Nick disappearing for a few weeks and others having to pick up > the work to sort it out certainly doesn't help. And the dcache_lock > splitup is a much larget task than that anyway. Getting that into .38 > is the enabler for doing more fancy things. And as Dave mentioned at > least in the writeback area it's much better to sort out the algorithmic > problems now than to blindly split some locks up more. I don't see why the algorithmic work can't be done in parallel to the lock split up? Just the lock split up on its own gives us large gains here. -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org