John McCutchan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
> >
> > I have a bad feeling about this one. It'd be nice to have an exact
> > understanding of the problen source, but if it's just lots of traffic on
> > ->d_lock we're kinda stuck. I don't expect we'll run off and RCUify
> > d_parent or turn d_lock into a seq_lock or anything liek that.
> >
> > Then again, maybe making d_lock an rwlock _will_ help - if this workload is
> > also hitting tree_lock (Robin?) and we're not seeing suckiness due to that
> > then perhaps the rwlock is magically helping.
> >
> >
> > > instead of your hack.
> >
> > It's not a terribly bad hack - it's just poor-man's hashing, and it's
> > reasonably well-suited to the sorts of machines and workloads which we
> > expect will hit this problem.
> >
>
> If this is as good as it gets, here is a patch (totally untested).
>
> ...
> @@ -538,7 +537,7 @@
> struct dentry *parent;
> struct inode *inode;
>
> - if (!atomic_read (&inotify_watches))
> + if (!atomic_read (&dentry->d_sb->s_inotify_watches))
> return;
>
What happens here if we're watching a mountpoint - the parent is on a
different fs?
-
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]
