[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100809194554.GB5356@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:45:55 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com, John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Keith Maanthey <kmannth@...ibm.com>,
Eric Whitney <eric.whitney@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 1/3] jbd2: Use atomic variables to avoid taking
t_handle_lock in jbd2_journal_stop
On Mon 09-08-10 15:05:13, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 07:02:16PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > spin_lock(&journal->j_state_lock);
> > spin_lock(&transaction->t_handle_lock);
> > - transaction->t_outstanding_credits -= handle->h_buffer_credits;
> > - transaction->t_updates--;
> > -
> > - if (!transaction->t_updates)
> > + atomic_sub(handle->h_buffer_credits,
> > + &transaction->t_outstanding_credits);
> > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&transaction->t_updates))
> >
> > After this a transaction can disappear so subsequent
> > __jbd2_log_start_commit shouldn't dereference transaction->t_tid,
> > right?
>
> I think it should be ok because we're holding j_state_lock(), so the
> transaction can't disappear until we release the j_state_lock.
Ah, OK. You're right. I just thought we eventually want to remove the
lock but you're right that currently the code is fine. Sorry for the noise.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists