On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 01:49:09AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:18:34PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> > > > > To allow removal of the inode_lock, we first need to protect the > > superblock inode list with it's own lock instead of using the > > inode_lock for this purpose. Nest the new sb_inode_list_lock inside > > the inode_lock around the list operations it needs to protect. > > Is there any good reason not to make this lock per-superblock? Because in the first part of the inode lock series, it is breaking locks in obvious small steps as possible, by adding global locks protecting bits of what inode_lock used to. If we did want to make it per-superblock, that would come at the last part of the series, where inode_lock is removed and steps are being taken to improve scalability and locking. But I don't see why we want to make it per-superblock really anyway. We want to have scalability within a single superblock, so per CPU locks are needed. Once we have those, per-superblock doesn't really buy much. -- 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
