+3
−3
+1
−1
+18
−22
Loading
Gitlab 现已全面支持 git over ssh 与 git over https。通过 HTTPS 访问请配置带有 read_repository / write_repository 权限的 Personal access token。通过 SSH 端口访问请使用 22 端口或 13389 端口。如果使用CAS注册了账户但不知道密码,可以自行至设置中更改;如有其他问题,请发邮件至 service@cra.moe 寻求协助。
I've noticed significant locking contention in memory reclaimer around sb_lock inside grab_super_passive(). Grab_super_passive() is called from two places: in icache/dcache shrinkers (function super_cache_scan) and from writeback (function __writeback_inodes_wb). Both are required for progress in memory allocator. Grab_super_passive() acquires sb_lock to increment sb->s_count and check sb->s_instances. It seems sb->s_umount locked for read is enough here: super-block deactivation always runs under sb->s_umount locked for write. Protecting super-block itself isn't a problem: in super_cache_scan() sb is protected by shrinker_rwsem: it cannot be freed if its slab shrinkers are still active. Inside writeback super-block comes from inode from bdi writeback list under wb->list_lock. This patch removes locking sb_lock and checks s_instances under s_umount: generic_shutdown_super() unlinks it under sb->s_umount locked for write. New variant is called trylock_super() and since it only locks semaphore, callers must call up_read(&sb->s_umount) instead of drop_super(sb) when they're done. Signed-off-by:Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru> Signed-off-by:
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE