linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/12] writeback: move dirty inodes from super_block to backing_dev

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090525084225.GB23546@duck.suse.cz>
Date:	Mon, 25 May 2009 10:42:25 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	chris.mason@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com, hch@...radead.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz,
	yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/12] writeback: move dirty inodes from super_block to
	backing_dev_info

On Mon 25-05-09 09:34:38, Jens Axboe wrote:
> This is a first step at introducing per-bdi flusher threads. We should
> have no change in behaviour, although sb_has_dirty_inodes() is now
> ridiculously expensive, as there's no easy way to answer that question.
> Not a huge problem, since it'll be deleted in subsequent patches.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
> ---
>  fs/fs-writeback.c           |  196 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  fs/super.c                  |    3 -
>  include/linux/backing-dev.h |    9 ++
>  include/linux/fs.h          |    5 +-
>  mm/backing-dev.c            |   30 +++++++
>  mm/page-writeback.c         |   11 +--
>  6 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-)
...
> @@ -225,9 +231,23 @@ int bdi_register_dev(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, dev_t dev)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(bdi_register_dev);
>  
> +static void bdi_remove_from_list(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> +{
> +	mutex_lock(&bdi_lock);
> +	list_del_rcu(&bdi->bdi_list);
> +	mutex_unlock(&bdi_lock);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * In case the bdi is freed right after unregister, we need to
> +	 * make sure any RCU sections have exited
> +	 */
> +	synchronize_rcu();
> +}
> +
  Is this RCU thing still valid? And in bdi_register_dev() as well...

									Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/