From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:12:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m3UBBZtE000687 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:11:38 -0700 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:11:54 +1000 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove l_flushsema Message-ID: <20080430111154.GO108924158@sgi.com> References: <20080430090502.GH14976@parisc-linux.org> <20080430104125.GM108924158@sgi.com> <20080430105832.GA20442@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080430105832.GA20442@infradead.org> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: David Chinner , Matthew Wilcox , xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 06:58:32AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 08:41:25PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > The only thing that I'm concerned about here is that this will > > substantially increase the time the l_icloglock is held. This is > > a severely contended lock on large cpu count machines and putting > > the wakeup inside this lock will increase the hold time. > > > > I guess I can address this by adding a new lock for the waitqueue > > in a separate patch set. > > waitqueues are loked internally and don't need synchronization. With > a little bit of re-arranging the code the wake_up could probably be > moved out of the critical section. Yeah, I just realised that myself and was about to reply as such.... I'll move the wakeup outside the lock. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group