[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1KsXrY-0000AU-C4@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:10:36 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: cl@...ux-foundation.org
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, penberg@...helsinki.fi, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au,
hugh@...itas.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: SLUB defrag pull request?
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> The only way that a secure reference can be established is if the
> slab page is locked. That requires a spinlock. The slab allocator
> calls the get() functions while the slab lock guarantees object
> existence. Then locks are dropped and reclaim actions can start with
> the guarantee that the slab object will not suddenly vanish.
Yes, you've made up your mind, that you want to do it this way. But
it's the _wrong_ way, this "want to get a secure reference for use
later" leads to madness when applied to dentries or inodes. Try for a
minute to think outside this template.
For example dcache_lock will protect against dentries moving to/from
d_lru. So you can do this:
take dcache_lock
check if d_lru is non-empty
take sb->s_umount
free dentry
release sb->s_umount
release dcache_lock
Yeah, locking will be more complicated in reality. Still, much less
complicated than trying to do the same across two separate phases.
Why can't something like that work?
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