On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Brent Casavant wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > @@ -1607,15 +1582,17 @@ static int shmem_statfs(struct super_blo
> > - if (sbinfo) {
> > - spin_lock(&sbinfo->stat_lock);
> > + spin_lock(&sbinfo->stat_lock);
...
>
> This is the only change I'm at all concerned about.
Thanks for noticing, I hadn't really considered that.
> I'm not sure how frequent statfs operations occur in practice (I suspect
> infrequently),
Infrequently, yes. I think infrequently to the point of never in
the case that concerns you: correct if I'm wrong, someone, but I think
there's actually no handle by which user can statfs shm's internal mount.
> however simply changing the existing code from "if (sbinfo)"
> to "if (sbinfo->max_blocks || sbinfo->max_inodes)" would be an appropriate
> remedy if there is a real problem.
Hadn't thought of that, yes, can do if there's a real problem.
> That said, I'm not all that concerned about it, as my fuzzy memory
> indicates it was the lock/unlock around the statistics updates which
> caused the primary lock contention.
That's right, and certainly this shmem_statfs locking change didn't
show up when you retested for me (thank you!) all those months ago.
Hugh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]