lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCHSET v3] non-recursive pathname resolution & RCU symlinks
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 09:38:08AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:

> > Both readdir() and path component lookup are technically read
> > operations, so why the hell do we use a mutex, rather than just
> > get a read-write lock for reading? Yeah, it's that (d) above. I
> > might trust xfs and ext4 to get their internal exclusions for
> > allocations etc right when called concurrently for the same
> > directory. But the others?
>
> They just use a write lock for everything and *nothing changes* -
> this is a simple problem to solve.
>
> The argument "filesystem developers are stupid" is not a
> compelling argument against changing locking. You're just being
> insulting, even though you probably don't realise it.

Er... Remember the clusterfuck around the ->i_size and alignment
checks on XFS DIO writes? Just this cycle. Correctness of XFS
locking is nothing to boast about - it *is* convoluted as hell and you
guys are not superhuman enough to reliably spot the problems in that nest
of horrors. Nobody is.

PS: I've no idea whether I'm being insulting or not and frankly, I don't give
a damn; unlike Linus I hadn't signed off on the "code of conflict" nonsense.
Anyone who feels like complaining is quite welcome to it.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-16 02:41    [W:0.253 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site