[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1KpOOL-0003Vf-9y@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:27:25 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: penberg@...helsinki.fi
CC: nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, hugh@...itas.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cl@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: SLUB defrag pull request?
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > In many cases, yes it seems to. And some of the approaches even if
> > they work now seem like they *might* cause problematic constraints
> > in the design... Have Al and Christoph reviewed the dentry and inode
> > patches?
>
> This d_invalidate() looks suspicious to me:
And the things kick_inodes() does without any sort of locking look
even more dangerous.
It should be the other way round: first make sure nothing is
referencing the inode, and _then_ start cleaning it up with
appropriate locks held. See prune_icache().
Miklos
--
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