From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q32JQYF5244190 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:26:34 -0500 Message-ID: <4F79FD69.70406@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 14:26:33 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] xfs: reduce ilock hold times in xfs_setattr_size References: <20120327143445.196524266@bombadil.infradead.org> <20120327143826.615954651@bombadil.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20120327143826.615954651@bombadil.infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 03/27/12 09:34, 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 good. Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs