On 06/10/2015 04:17 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> The inode_free_security() function just took the superblock's isec_lock
> before checking and trying to remove the inode security struct from the
> linked list. In many cases, the list was empty and so the lock taking
> is wasteful as no useful work is d
On 06/11/2015 08:38 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On 06/10/2015 04:17 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
The inode_free_security() function just took the superblock's isec_lock
before checking and trying to remove the inode security struct from the
linked list. In many cases, the list was empty and so the lock
On 06/10/2015 04:17 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> The inode_free_security() function just took the superblock's isec_lock
> before checking and trying to remove the inode security struct from the
> linked list. In many cases, the list was empty and so the lock taking
> is wasteful as no useful work is d
The inode_free_security() function just took the superblock's isec_lock
before checking and trying to remove the inode security struct from the
linked list. In many cases, the list was empty and so the lock taking
is wasteful as no useful work is done. On multi-socket systems with
a large number of
4 matches
Mail list logo
