Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:13:21 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 21 million inodes is causing severe pauses. |
| |
Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com> wrote: > > I guess I am very concerned at this point. If I can do a > release/reacquire, why not just change generic_shutdown_super() so the > lock_kernel() does not happen until the first pass has occurred. ie: > > --- super.c.orig 2004-11-16 10:22:17 -06:00 > +++ super.c 2004-11-16 10:22:41 -06:00 > @@ -232,10 +232,10 @@ > dput(root); > fsync_super(sb); > lock_super(sb); > - lock_kernel(); > sb->s_flags &= ~MS_ACTIVE; > /* bad name - it should be evict_inodes() */ > invalidate_inodes(sb); > + lock_kernel(); > > if (sop->write_super && sb->s_dirt) > sop->write_super(sb); > > This at least makes the lock_kernel time much smaller than it is right > now. It also does not affect any callers that may really need the BKL.
lock_kernel() is also taken way up in do_umount(), hence the need for release_kernel_lock()/reacquire_kernel_lock().
> > I guess I am really asking for an indication of what the BKL is supposed > to be protecting. I have not dug for the intent down the VFS code paths > at all.
It's not protecting anything around invalidate_inodes(). There may be other things in the higher-level umount path which need it.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |