From: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
To: John McCutchan <john@johnmccutchan.com>
Cc: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rml@novell.com, arnd@arndb.de,
hch@lst.de, akpm@osdl.org
Subject: Re: udevd is killing file write performance.
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:50:30 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060222175030.GB30556@lnx-holt.americas.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1140626903.13461.5.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:48:23AM -0500, John McCutchan wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-22-02 at 07:42 -0600, Robin Holt wrote:
> >
> > I know _VERY_ little about filesystems. udevd appears to be looking
> > at /etc/udev/rules.d. This bumps inotify_watches to 1. The file
> > being written is on an xfs filesystem mounted at a different mountpoint.
> > Could the inotify flag be moved from a global to a sb (or something
> > finer) point and therefore avoid taking the dentry->d_lock when there
> > is no possibility of a watch event being queued.
>
> We could do this, and avoid the problem, but only in this specific
> scenario. The file being written is on a different mountpoint but whats
> to stop a different app from running inotify on that mount point?
> Perhaps the program could be altered instead?
Looking at fsnotify_access() I think we could hit the same scenario.
Are you proposing we alter any appliction where multiple threads read
a single data file to first make a hard link to that data file and each
read from their private copy? I don't think that is a very reasonable
suggestion.
Let me reiterate, I know _VERY_ little about filesystems. Can the
dentry->d_lock be changed to a read/write lock?
Thanks,
Robin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-22 17:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-22 13:42 udevd is killing file write performance Robin Holt
2006-02-22 13:55 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-22 16:48 ` John McCutchan
2006-02-22 17:50 ` Robin Holt [this message]
2006-02-22 20:05 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-22 21:50 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2006-02-23 12:56 ` Robin Holt
2006-02-23 13:42 ` David Chinner
2006-02-22 22:52 ` John McCutchan
2006-02-22 23:12 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-22 23:41 ` John McCutchan
2006-02-24 0:14 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-24 0:14 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-24 5:47 ` John McCutchan
2006-02-24 6:00 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-24 7:07 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-24 7:16 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-24 7:19 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-26 16:58 ` John McCutchan
2006-02-24 18:56 ` Robin Holt
2006-02-25 2:44 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-25 15:53 ` [patch] inotify: lock avoidance with parent watch status in dentry Nick Piggin
2006-02-28 0:48 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-26 16:55 ` udevd is killing file write performance John McCutchan
2006-02-27 10:11 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-27 20:17 ` John McCutchan
2006-02-23 20:38 ` Benjamin LaHaise
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060222175030.GB30556@lnx-holt.americas.sgi.com \
--to=holt@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=john@johnmccutchan.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rml@novell.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).