Re: [RFC] get_write_access()/deny_write_access() without inode->i_lock

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> 	I'm seriously tempted to throw away i_lock uses in
> {get,deny}_write_access(), as in the patch below.  The question is, how

Are there any known workload where the spinlock contends badly here?
Or what's the motivation for it?

Thanks,

-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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux