On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 09:08:17AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Again, this is only an issue for non-dentry lookup. For the dentry > case, we know that if the dentry still exists, then the inode still > exists. So we don't need to check a stable inode pointer if we just > verify the stability of the dentry - and we'll have to do that anyway > obviously. If the dentry still exists we have a reference on the inode and never call into the inode hash. > In other words: let's bite off the complexity in small chunks. Let's > keep the inode lock approach for now for the actual inode lists and > hash lookups. I think they are almost entirely independent issues from > the dentry path. I'm defintively in favour of splitting things into small chunks. I don't particularly care how we do it. inode_lock scaling seems the most simple bit to me, and even that turned out to be a massive amount of work to do properly. Doing the dentry_lock splitup last starts to look more and more interesting given how messy inode_lock is, though. -- 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
