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 q2QMI6wk103323 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:18:07 -0500 Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id pZcR0K6o9yDTSzDm for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:18:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:17:51 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] xfs: reduce ilock hold times in xfs_setattr_size Message-ID: <20120326221750.GR5091@dastard> References: <20120326211421.518374058@bombadil.infradead.org> <20120326211603.455167123@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120326211603.455167123@bombadil.infradead.org> 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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 05:14:24PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > We do not need the ilock for most checks done in the beginning of > xfs_setattr_size. Replace the long critical section before starting the > transaction with a smaller one around xfs_zero_eof and an optional one > inside xfs_qm_dqattach that isn't entered unless using quotas. While > this isn't a big optimization for xfs_setattr_size itself it will allow > pushing the ilock into xfs_zero_eof itself later. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig Looks sane to me. Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs