lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] improve jbd fsync batching
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 22:24:28 -0700 Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com> wrote:

> On Nov 03, 2008 12:27 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:16:15 -0400
> > Josef Bacik <jbacik@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > + spin_lock(&journal->j_state_lock);
> > > + commit_time = journal->j_average_commit_time;
> > > + spin_unlock(&journal->j_state_lock);
> >
> > OK, the lock is needed on 32-bit machines, I guess.
>
> Should we pessimize the 64-bit performance in that case, for 32-bit
> increasingly rare 32-bit platforms?

In general no.

But spinlocks also do memory ordering stuff on both 32- and 64-bit
machines. Introducing differences there needs thinking about.

In this case it's fsync which is going to be monster slow anyway.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-04 10:17    [W:0.117 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site