lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [CFT] Re: VFS deadlock ?
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:33:27PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Ok, that's kind of ugly, but shouldn't be a correctness issue. It
> should still work - just cycle through inodes quite aggressivelydue to
> no longer re-using them - so I suspect Dave could test it (with the
> extra line removed I pointed out just a moment ago).
>
> And I wonder how big of a deal the aggressive dentry deletion is.
> Maybe it's even ok to allocate/free the inodes all the time. The whole
> "get the inode hash lock and look it up there" can't be all that
> wonderful either. It takes the inode->i_lock for each entry it finds
> on the hash list, which looks horrible. I suspect our slab allocator
> isn't much worse than that, although the RCU freeing of the inodes
> could end up being problematic.

Hell knows... At the very least, I'd expect /proc/self to be fairly hot.
During the boot time - /proc/mounts, /proc/filesystems, /proc/cmdline...
Dunno. Would be interesting to slap a printk into proc_lookup_de() and
see how much (and what) does it hit on a busy system...


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-22 08:01    [W:0.097 / U:0.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site