Searched hist:"13 c5a93e" (Results 1 – 3 of 3) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/btrfs/ |
| H A D | transaction.h | 13c5a93e Mon Apr 11 14:45:29 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> Btrfs: avoid taking the trans_mutex in btrfs_end_transaction
I've been working on making our O_DIRECT latency not suck and I noticed we were
taking the trans_mutex in btrfs_end_transaction. So to do this we convert
num_writers and use_count to atomic_t's and just decrement them in
btrfs_end_transaction. Instead of deleting the transaction from the trans list
in put_transaction we do that in btrfs_commit_transaction() since that's the
only time it actually needs to be removed from the list. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
13c5a93e Mon Apr 11 14:45:29 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> Btrfs: avoid taking the trans_mutex in btrfs_end_transaction
I've been working on making our O_DIRECT latency not suck and I noticed we were
taking the trans_mutex in btrfs_end_transaction. So to do this we convert
num_writers and use_count to atomic_t's and just decrement them in
btrfs_end_transaction. Instead of deleting the transaction from the trans list
in put_transaction we do that in btrfs_commit_transaction() since that's the
only time it actually needs to be removed from the list. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
|
| H A D | transaction.c | 13c5a93e Mon Apr 11 14:45:29 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> Btrfs: avoid taking the trans_mutex in btrfs_end_transaction
I've been working on making our O_DIRECT latency not suck and I noticed we were
taking the trans_mutex in btrfs_end_transaction. So to do this we convert
num_writers and use_count to atomic_t's and just decrement them in
btrfs_end_transaction. Instead of deleting the transaction from the trans list
in put_transaction we do that in btrfs_commit_transaction() since that's the
only time it actually needs to be removed from the list. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
13c5a93e Mon Apr 11 14:45:29 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> Btrfs: avoid taking the trans_mutex in btrfs_end_transaction
I've been working on making our O_DIRECT latency not suck and I noticed we were
taking the trans_mutex in btrfs_end_transaction. So to do this we convert
num_writers and use_count to atomic_t's and just decrement them in
btrfs_end_transaction. Instead of deleting the transaction from the trans list
in put_transaction we do that in btrfs_commit_transaction() since that's the
only time it actually needs to be removed from the list. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
|
| H A D | disk-io.c | 13c5a93e Mon Apr 11 14:45:29 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> Btrfs: avoid taking the trans_mutex in btrfs_end_transaction
I've been working on making our O_DIRECT latency not suck and I noticed we were
taking the trans_mutex in btrfs_end_transaction. So to do this we convert
num_writers and use_count to atomic_t's and just decrement them in
btrfs_end_transaction. Instead of deleting the transaction from the trans list
in put_transaction we do that in btrfs_commit_transaction() since that's the
only time it actually needs to be removed from the list. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
13c5a93e Mon Apr 11 14:45:29 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> Btrfs: avoid taking the trans_mutex in btrfs_end_transaction
I've been working on making our O_DIRECT latency not suck and I noticed we were
taking the trans_mutex in btrfs_end_transaction. So to do this we convert
num_writers and use_count to atomic_t's and just decrement them in
btrfs_end_transaction. Instead of deleting the transaction from the trans list
in put_transaction we do that in btrfs_commit_transaction() since that's the
only time it actually needs to be removed from the list. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
|