From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o8T6CrgV026143 for ; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 01:12:55 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id BAE4018846D7 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 23:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id guC63vE8p9rEL9Ol for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 23:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 02:13:51 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: reduce lock traffic on incore sb lock Message-ID: <20100929061351.GA20921@infradead.org> References: <1285721500-5671-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100929040425.GA29691@infradead.org> <20100929055748.GK5665@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100929055748.GK5665@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:57:48PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > FWIW, I've got a prototype that converts the per-cpu counters to the > generic per-cpu counter infrastructure. It chops out almost all the > xfs_icsb_* stuff (including xfs_icsb_modify_counters()) and has a > diffstat of: Sounds good - I always throught of the balanced per-cpu counters as infrastructure that really shouldn't sit inside XFS. > It needs a significant cleanup of xfs_mod_incore_sb() before/after > the conversion which I haven't done yet because I haven't quite got > my new percpu_counter_test_and_add_delta() function working > correctly yet. I spotted this locking problem when testing the > patch... > > That said, there's no reason why my percpu counter code needs to run > through xfs_mod_incore_sb() at all. If we have a separate path for > per-cpu counters then I can rework my code on top of that.... We'll always need a low-level function to to the actual superblock updates and a high-level one modifying the per-cpu counters. I don't think the exact naming matters too much. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs