Re: rename() contention (BUG?)

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


On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 11:19:56PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Al Viro wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 08:43:34PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >  
> >>The changes make the mutex more efficient, but won't decrease the 
> >>contention.  It seems that all renames in one filesystem are serialized, 
> >>and if the renames require I/O (which is certainly the case with nfs), 
> >>rename throughput is severely limited.
> >>    
> >
> >	They are, and for a good reason.  For details see
> >Documentation/filesystems/directory-locking.
> >  
> Is it possible to lock only the common subtree of the two paths?
> Perhaps walk towards the root of the tree, starting with the deeper 
> path, locking one component at a time.  Then walk both paths together 
> locking components ordered by something to avoid deadlock.

Please, read the file mentioned above.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[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]
  Powered by Linux