[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1203541940.29823.38.camel@nimitz.home.sr71.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:12:20 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de, akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 28/30] r/o bind mounts: track numbers of writers to
mounts
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 17:10 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
> > + /*
> > + * We don't have to hold all of the locks at the
> > + * same time here because we know that we're the
> > + * last reference to mnt and that no new writers
> > + * can come in.
> > + */
> > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > + struct mnt_writer *cpu_writer = &per_cpu(mnt_writers, cpu);
> > + if (cpu_writer->mnt != mnt)
> > + continue;
> > + spin_lock(&cpu_writer->lock);
> > + atomic_add(cpu_writer->count, &mnt->__mnt_writers);
> > + cpu_writer->count = 0;
>
> I think you should also add a
>
> cpu_writer->mnt = NULL;
>
> here. It's not a bug, but I had to think a bit about why it's not a
> bug.
Yeah, I kinda copied the code from __clear_mnt_count() where keeping
->mnt is actually a mini optimization. But, there is certainly no
chance of that mnt popping up again after a __mntput(), so I clear it in
there now. I also added a comment explaining.
-- Dave
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists