[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090528193822.GA30982@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 15:38:22 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
chris.mason@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com, hch@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com,
richard@....demon.co.uk, damien.wyart@...e.fr,
Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...stanetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] Per-bdi writeback flusher threads v8
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 03:32:46PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure that after the first call to invalidate_inodes() in
> fs/super.c's generic_shutdown_super(), we really don't need to hold
> the BKL or the superblock lock (and let the filesystems' low-level
> write_super(0 and put_super() take the lock if they really need it),
> but we probably need to take a closer look at this to make sure it's
> true for all filesystems. (IIRC, I think Christoph was looking to
> clean up lock_super(); at least with respect to the write_super call.
> I don't know what his plans regarding the BKL and put_super(),
> though.)
Both the BKL and lock_super are not held for ->put_super anymore in
the vfs tree. In fact in the vfs tree there are no callers of
lock_super in the VFS anymore.
--
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