[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220309101057.3uuix2gvjinobt3i@quack3.lan>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 11:10:57 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, riteshh@...ux.ibm.com, jack@...e.cz,
tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ext4: convert i_fc_lock to spinlock
On Tue 08-03-22 08:33:15, Harshad Shirwadkar wrote:
> From: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>
>
> Convert ext4_inode_info->i_fc_lock to spinlock to avoid sleeping
> in invalid contexts.
>
> Signed-off-by: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>
One comment below...
> @@ -972,9 +970,13 @@ static int ext4_fc_wait_inode_data_all(journal_t *journal)
>
> spin_lock(&sbi->s_fc_lock);
> list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, n, &sbi->s_fc_q[FC_Q_MAIN], i_fc_list) {
> + spin_lock(&pos->i_fc_lock);
> if (!ext4_test_inode_state(&pos->vfs_inode,
> - EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING))
> + EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING)) {
> + spin_unlock(&pos->i_fc_lock);
> continue;
> + }
> + spin_unlock(&pos->i_fc_lock);
> spin_unlock(&sbi->s_fc_lock);
Why do you add a lock here in a pure lock-conversion patch? Furthermore I
don't think the lock is needed...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists