On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:35:10PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > npiggin@xxxxxxx writes: > > > Lock tty_files with tty_mutex, provide helpers to manipulate the per-sb > > files list, and unexport the files_lock spinlock. > > This conflicts a bit with some of my ongoing work, which is generalizing > the file list to make it more useful and makes the tty case much less > of a special case. OK. My first patch should be fine, though. > Do you know if the performance improvement would be anywhere near as good if > file_list and file_list_lock becoming per inode? Interesting (I didn't look closely at your patches yet). Probably that would be quite reasonable. > Do you have any idea what the performance improvement with changing the file_list_lock > is? Several of these locks hit in the same workloads so they mask each other. I only just got the patchset to the stage where I can really benchmark it. I could try your alternative as well. > > Index: linux-2.6/fs/open.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/open.c > > +++ linux-2.6/fs/open.c > > @@ -828,7 +828,7 @@ static struct file *__dentry_open(struct > > f->f_path.mnt = mnt; > > f->f_pos = 0; > > f->f_op = fops_get(inode->i_fop); > > - file_move(f, &inode->i_sb->s_files); > > + file_sb_list_add(f, inode->i_sb); > > You can make this just: > if (!special_file(inode->i_mode)) > file_add(f, &inode->i_files); > > And save yourself a lot of complexity. Probably right, but I'll leave that for someone else to do. -- 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
