Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1415659

Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion

From Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion
Date 2016-06-07 05:30 +0200
Message-ID <rHfSh-5CL-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <rH90u-16B-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <rH9Db-1jo-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <rHafU-1OH-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <rHafT-1OH-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 14:20:32 -0700, Linus Torvalds said:

> I guess some "concurrent readdir with unlink" load would show that
> behavior, but is it _realistic_? No idea. Let's not worry about it too
> much until somebody shows a reason to worry.

I've seen Makefiles where 'make clean' does a 'find . -name "*.o" | xargs rm'.

But if somebody is doing that often enough against cache-cold directory trees
to matter, they have bigger problems (like learning how to properly develop
code using 'make').  So unless performance is *so* bad it triggers the lockup
detector, it's probably OK....

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> - 2016-06-06 22:10 +0200
  Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-06-06 22:50 +0200
    Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-06-06 23:20 +0200
      Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-06-06 23:50 +0200
        Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-06-07 00:10 +0200
          Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-06-07 02:00 +0200
            Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-06-07 02:00 +0200
              Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-06-07 02:30 +0200
            Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-06-07 02:50 +0200
              Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-06-07 02:50 +0200
              Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-06-07 03:00 +0200
                Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-06-07 03:30 +0200
              Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-06-07 03:00 +0200
    Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-06-06 23:30 +0200
      Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu - 2016-06-07 05:30 +0200
    Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-06-08 11:00 +0200
      Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-06-09 12:30 +0200
        Re: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> - 2016-06-09 20:20 +0200
          RE: performance delta after VFS i_mutex=>i_rwsem conversion "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@intel.com> - 2016-06-09 22:20 +0200

csiph-web