On Fri 23-05-14 00:03:21, J. R. Okajima wrote: > > Jan Kara: > > I don't think scanning the whole superblock list is really a viable > > alternative. That is going to contend a lot on inode_sb_list_lock and burn > > a lot of CPU when there is even moderate number of inodes in tmpfs. If we > > ever have to really use unique inode numbers for tmpfs (but I'm not > > convinced - see my other email), we should probably hash those inodes and > > use iunique()... > > Actually I tried > static int test_inode_iunique(struct super_block *sb, unsigned long ino) > which is defined fs/inode.c. > But tmpfs doesn't add inode into hash list when creating the inode. Yes, that's why I wrote that if we find that uniqueness of inode numbers in tmpfs is needed, then we should probably just make tmpfs add inodes to hash list and use iunique(). That would seem like a better solution to me. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
