[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100630072702.GF24712@dastard>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:27:02 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: npiggin@...e.de
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 29/52] fs: icache lock i_count
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:02:41PM +1000, npiggin@...e.de wrote:
> Protect inode->i_count with i_lock, rather than having it atomic.
> Next step should also be to move things together (eg. the refcount increment
> into d_instantiate, which will remove a lock/unlock cycle on i_lock).
.....
> Index: linux-2.6/fs/inode.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/inode.c
> +++ linux-2.6/fs/inode.c
> @@ -33,14 +33,13 @@
> * inode_hash_lock protects:
> * inode hash table, i_hash
> * inode->i_lock protects:
> - * i_state
> + * i_state, i_count
> *
> * Ordering:
> * inode_lock
> * sb_inode_list_lock
> * inode->i_lock
> - * inode_lock
> - * inode_hash_lock
> + * inode_hash_lock
> */
I thought that the rule governing the use of inode->i_lock was that
it can be used anywhere as long as it is the innermost lock.
Hmmm, no references in the code or documentation. Google gives a
pretty good reference:
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org/msg02584.html
Perhaps a different/new lock needs to be used here?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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