From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: holt@SGI.com, john@johnmccutchan.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rml@novell.com, hch@lst.de,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [patch] inotify: lock avoidance with parent watch status in dentry
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:48:12 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060227164812.0159eb77.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44007D6C.6020909@yahoo.com.au>
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> Previous inotify work avoidance is good when inotify is completely
> unused, but it breaks down if even a single watch is in place anywhere
> in the system. Robin Holt notices that udev is one such culprit - it
> slows down a 512-thread application on a 512 CPU system from 6 seconds
> to 22 minutes.
A problem is that the audit tree (believe it or not) adds a pile of new
inotify functionality. I don't know what those changes do and they might
conflict with the changes you've made (apart from giving us two copies of
inotify_inode_watched()) and the audit changes were apparently only
socialised on the linux-audit mailing list and my twice-sent patch to make
the audit tree compile has been ignored for a couple of weeks.
So I'm going to bitbucket the audit tree until a) it compiles and b) its
inotify changes have been explained and reviewed and c) we've reviewed
those changes against your optimisations. I think fixes will be needed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-28 0:58 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
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 [this message]
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=20060227164812.0159eb77.akpm@osdl.org \
--to=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=holt@SGI.com \
--cc=john@johnmccutchan.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=rml@novell.com \
--cc=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
/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).