linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/17] fs: icache lock lru/writeback lists

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:16:40 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/17] fs: icache lock lru/writeback lists

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:52:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:18:38 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
> 
> > The inode moves between different lists protected by the inode_lock. Introduce
> > a new lock that protects all of the lists (dirty, unused, in use, etc) that the
> > inode will move around as it changes state. As this is mostly a list for
> > protecting the writeback lists, name it wb_inode_list_lock and nest all the
> > list manipulations in this lock inside the current inode_lock scope.
> 
> All those spin_trylock()s are real ugly.  They're unexplained in the
> changelog and unexplained in code comments.

Yes, they are, but I don't know exactly why it is so trylock happy.
I'll try to dig out the reason for it and:

> I'd suggest that each such site have a comment explaining why we're
> resorting to this.

At least get this far.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/