From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49092 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726479AbfDHKmW (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Apr 2019 06:42:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 12:33:03 +0200 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [POC][PATCH] xfs: reduce ilock contention on buffered randrw workload Message-ID: <20190408103303.GA18239@quack2.suse.cz> References: <20190404165737.30889-1-amir73il@gmail.com> <20190404211730.GD26298@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190404211730.GD26298@dastard> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Dave Chinner Cc: Amir Goldstein , "Darrick J . Wong" , Christoph Hellwig , Matthew Wilcox , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso On Fri 05-04-19 08:17:30, Dave Chinner wrote: > FYI, I'm working on a range lock implementation that should both > solve the performance issue and the reader starvation issue at the > same time by allowing concurrent buffered reads and writes to > different file ranges. Are you aware of range locks Davidlohr has implemented [1]? It didn't get merged because he had no in-tree user at the time (he was more aiming at converting mmap_sem which is rather difficult). But the generic lock implementation should be well usable. Added Davidlohr to CC. Honza [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/7/22 -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR