[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YRVQwWt4m9UGHCHp@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 12:48:01 -0400
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] ext4: Improve scalability of ext4 orphan file
handling
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 12:19:15PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/orphan.c b/fs/ext4/orphan.c
> index 019719c0ac12..18622ddeb41b 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/orphan.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/orphan.c
> @@ -28,28 +43,40 @@ static int ext4_orphan_file_add(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode)
> */
> return -ENOSPC;
> }
> - oi->of_binfo[i].ob_free_entries--;
> - spin_unlock(&oi->of_lock);
>
> - /*
> - * Get access to orphan block. We have dropped of_lock but since we
> - * have decremented number of free entries we are guaranteed free entry
> - * in our block.
> - */
> ret = ext4_journal_get_write_access(handle, inode->i_sb,
> oi->of_binfo[i].ob_bh, EXT4_JTR_ORPHAN_FILE);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
Shouldn't there be a call to:
atomic_inc(&oi->of_binfo[i].ob_free_entries);
before we return, so the free_entry count stays consistent?
Otherwise, with the test-bot comments also addressed, you can add:
Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Thanks,
- Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists