om;
>> linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org;
>> linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev][PATCH] f2fs: optimize fs_lock for better performance
>>
>> Hi Jaegeuk, Chao,
>>
>> On 09/10/2013 08:52 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrot
> linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev][PATCH] f2fs: optimize fs_lock for better performance
>
> Hi Jaegeuk, Chao,
>
> On 09/10/2013 08:52 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > At first, thank you for the report and please follow t
> Subject: Re: Re: [f2fs-dev][PATCH] f2fs: optimize fs_lock for better
performance
>
> Hi,
>
> 2013/9/11 Chao Yu
> >
> > Hi Kim,
> >
> > I did some tests as you mention of using random instead of spin_lock.
> > The test model is as following:
> >
at the f2fs_initxattrs()
>>>
>>> Agree. This fs_lock here is used to protect the xattr from parallel
>>> modification,
>>> but here is in the initxattrs routine, parallel modification can not
>>> happen.
>>> And in the normal setxattr routine the i
fs_initxattrs()
>>>
>>> Agree. This fs_lock here is used to protect the xattr from parallel
>>> modification,
>>> but here is in the initxattrs routine, parallel modification can not
>>> happen.
>>> And in the normal setxattr routine the inode
Hi Gu,
2013/9/11 Gu Zheng :
> Hi Jaegeuk, Chao,
>
> On 09/10/2013 08:52 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> At first, thank you for the report and please follow the email writing
>> rules. :)
>>
>> Anyway, I agree to the below issue.
>> One thing that I can think of is that we don't need to use
e initxattrs routine, parallel modification can not
>> happen.
>> And in the normal setxattr routine the inode->i_mutex (vfs layer) is used
>> to
>> avoid parallel modification. So I think this fs_lock is needless.
>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> Regards,
>
our opinion?
Could you test with sbi->next_lock_num++ only instead of using
atomic_add_return?
IMO, this is just an integer value and still I don't think this value should
be covered by any kind of locks.
Thanks,
>
> thanks
>
> --- Original Message -------
> Sender : ???
Hi Jaegeuk, Chao,
On 09/10/2013 08:52 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At first, thank you for the report and please follow the email writing
> rules. :)
>
> Anyway, I agree to the below issue.
> One thing that I can think of is that we don't need to use the
> spin_lock, since we don't care abo
o
> avoid parallel modification. So I think this fs_lock is needless.
> Am I missing something?
>
> Regards,
> Gu
>
> > level, since this case only happens when f2fs_initxattrs() is called.
> > Let's think about ut in more detail.
> > Thanks,
> >
> >>
is used to
avoid parallel modification. So I think this fs_lock is needless.
Am I missing something?
Regards,
Gu
> level, since this case only happens when f2fs_initxattrs() is called.
> Let's think about ut in more detail.
> Thanks,
>
>>
>>
>>
>> thanks
Hi Jaegeuk,
On 09/10/2013 08:52 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At first, thank you for the report and please follow the email writing
> rules. :)
>
> Anyway, I agree to the below issue.
> One thing that I can think of is that we don't need to use the
> spin_lock, since we don't care about the
2 (GMT+09:00)
Title : Re: [f2fs-dev][PATCH] f2fs: optimize fs_lock for better performance
Hi,
At first, thank you for the report and please follow the email writing
rules. :)
Anyway, I agree to the below issue.
One thing that I can think of is that we don't need to use the
spin_lock, since we d
_initxattrs()
> level, since this case only happens when f2fs_initxattrs() is called.
> Let's think about ut in more detail.
> Thanks,
>
> >
> >
> >
> > thanks again!
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Original Message ---
> >
>
detail.
Thanks,
>
>
>
> thanks again!
>
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
> Sender : Russ Knize
>
> Date : 九月 07, 2013 04:25 (GMT+09:00)
>
> Title : Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: optimize fs_lock for better
> performance
>
>
>
Hi,
Nice catch.
This is definitely a bug where one thread grabbed two fs_locks across
the same flow.
Any idea?
Thanks,
2013-09-06 (금), 14:25 -0500, Russ Knize:
> I encountered this same issue recently and solved it in much the same
> way. Can we rename "spin_lock" to something more meaningful?
>
Hi,
At first, thank you for the report and please follow the email writing
rules. :)
Anyway, I agree to the below issue.
One thing that I can think of is that we don't need to use the
spin_lock, since we don't care about the exact lock number, but just
need to get any not-collided number.
So, ho
I encountered this same issue recently and solved it in much the same way.
Can we rename "spin_lock" to something more meaningful?
This race actually exposed a potential deadlock between f2fs_create() and
f2fs_initxattrs():
- vfs_create()
- f2fs_create() - takes an fs_lock
- f2fs_add_link()
Title: Samsung Enterprise Portal mySingle
Hi Kim:
I think there is a performance problem: when all sbi->fs_lock is holded,
then all other threads may get the same next_lock value from sbi->next_lock_num in function mutex_lock_op,
and wait to get the same lock at position fs_lock[next_
19 matches
Mail list logo
