On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 07:56:44 -0400
Jim Rees wrote:
> Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> > Might be nice to look at some profiles to confirm all of that. I'd also
> > be curious how much variation there was in the results above, as they're
> > pretty close.
> >
>
> The above is just a random re
Jeff Layton wrote:
> Might be nice to look at some profiles to confirm all of that. I'd also
> be curious how much variation there was in the results above, as they're
> pretty close.
>
The above is just a random representative sample. The results are
pretty close when running thi
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:31:01 -0400
"J. Bruce Fields" wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:07:23PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Executive summary (tl;dr version): This patchset represents an overhaul
> > of the file locking code with an aim toward improving its scalability
> > and making the code a
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:07:23PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Executive summary (tl;dr version): This patchset represents an overhaul
> of the file locking code with an aim toward improving its scalability
> and making the code a bit easier to understand.
Thanks for working on this, that code cou
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 23:07 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> This is not the first attempt at doing this. The conversion to the
> i_lock was originally attempted by Bruce Fields a few years ago. His
> approach was NAK'ed since it involved ripping out the deadlock
> detection. People also really seem to
Executive summary (tl;dr version): This patchset represents an overhaul
of the file locking code with an aim toward improving its scalability
and making the code a bit easier to understand.
Longer version:
When the BKL was finally ripped out of the kernel in 2010, the strategy
taken for the file
6 matches
Mail list logo
