From: Mitchell Blank Jr <mitch@sfgoth.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@turbolinux.com>
Cc: Anton Blanchard <anton@linuxcare.com.au>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: spinlock usage - ext2_get_block, lru_list_lock
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:05:59 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010321010559.B27804@sfgoth.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010321180607.A11941@linuxcare.com> <200103210846.f2L8kIe04539@webber.adilger.int>
In-Reply-To: <200103210846.f2L8kIe04539@webber.adilger.int>; from adilger@turbolinux.com on Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 01:46:17AM -0700
Andreas Dilger wrote:
> With per-group (or maybe per-bitmap) locking, files could be created in
> parallel with only a small amount of global locking if they are in different
> groups.
...and then we can let the disc go nuts seeking to actually commit all
these new blocks. I suspect that this change would only be a win for
memory-based discs where seek time is zero.
I think that before anyone starts modifying the kernel for this they
should benchmark how often the free block checker blocks on lock
contention _AND_ how often the thread its contending with is looking
for a free block in a _different_ allocation group. I bet it's not
often at all.
> It may also be
> possible to have lazy updating of the superblock counts, and depend on
> e2fsck to update the superblock counts on a crash.
That sounds more promising.
> , and only moving the deltas from the groups
> to the superblock on sync or similar.
If we're going to assume that e2fsck will correct the numbers anyway then
there's really no reason to update them any time except when marking
the filesystem clean (umount, remount-ro) As a bonus, we have to update
the superblock then anyway.
-Mitch
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-21 9:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-03-21 7:06 spinlock usage - ext2_get_block, lru_list_lock Anton Blanchard
2001-03-21 8:46 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-03-21 9:05 ` Mitchell Blank Jr [this message]
2001-03-21 9:41 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-03-21 12:11 ` [patch] pagecache SMP-scalability patch [was: spinlock usage] Ingo Molnar
2001-03-21 12:27 ` Anton Blanchard
2001-03-21 12:54 ` Alexander Viro
2001-03-21 12:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-03-21 13:56 ` Alexander Viro
2001-03-21 14:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-03-21 16:52 ` spinlock usage - ext2_get_block, lru_list_lock Linus Torvalds
2001-03-21 17:16 ` Alexander Viro
2001-03-21 18:15 ` James Lewis Nance
2001-03-21 21:01 ` Alexander Viro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010321010559.B27804@sfgoth.com \
--to=mitch@sfgoth.com \
--cc=adilger@turbolinux.com \
--cc=anton@linuxcare.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox