On Tue 15-04-14 10:27:46, Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke wrote: > On 04/14/2014 11:40 AM, Jan Kara wrote: > > Thanks for trying that out! Can you please send me a patch you have been > > testing? Because it doesn't quite make sense to me why using i_mutex should > > be worse than using hashed locks... > > > > Thanks again for the comments. > > Since i_mutex is also used for serialization in other operations on an > inode, in the case that the i_mutex is not held using it for > serialization could cause contention with other operations on the inode. > As the number shows substantial instances of orphan add or delete calls > without holding the i_mutex, I presume the performance degradation is due > to the contention. I have checked the source and I didn't find many places where i_mutex was not held. But maybe I'm wrong. That's why I wanted to see the patch where you are using i_mutex instead of hashed mutexes and which didn't perform good enough. > As for the patch, could you please let me know if you need the patch > using i_mutex or the patch I'm planning to submit. If it's the latter, > I'm thinking of go ahead and resubmit it. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
