On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:43:33PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > BTW, we have one atomic op that could be avoided in new_inode() > > spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); > inode->i_state = 0; > spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); > > can probably be changed to something less expensive... > > inode->i_state = 0; > smp_wmb(); > > Not clear if we really need a memory barrier either.... I think we already had this in some of the earlier vfs/inode scale series, but it got lost when Al asked to just put the fundamental changes in. For plain new_inode() the barrier shouldn't be needed as we take the sb list lock just a little later. I'm not sure about your new variant, so I'll rather lave that to you. There's a few other things missing from earlier iterations, most notable the non-atomic i_count, and the bucket locks for the inode hash, if you're eager enough to look into that area. -- 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
