Mike Waychison <mikew@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > livelock on dcache_lock/inode_lock (specifically in atomic_dec_and_lock()) I'm not sure how something can livelock in atomic_dec_and_lock which doesn't take a spinlock itself? Are you saying you run into NUMA memory unfairness here? Or did I misparse you? > This patchset is an attempt to try and reduce the locking overheads associated > with final dput() and final iput(). This is done by batching dentries and > inodes into per-process queues and processing them in 'parallel' to consolidate > some of the locking. I was wondering what this does to the latencies when dput/iput is only done for very objects. Does it increase costs then significantly? As a high level comment it seems like a lot of work to work around global locks, like the inode_lock, where it might be better to just split the lock up? Mind you I don't have a clear proposal how to do that, but surely it's doable somehow. -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
