linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 17/19] fs: Reduce inode I

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:54:15 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
To:	Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/19] fs: Reduce inode I_FREEING and factor inode
 disposal

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 02:27:02PM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> I took a look at this code and was able to remove the i_lock -> 
> dcache_lock nesting.  To be honest, I'm not sure why I did it that way in 
> the first place.  The only point (now) where i_lock is used/needed is 
> while checking the ceph inode flags, and that's done without holding 
> dcache_lock (presumably soon to be d_lock).

Great, it was a bit nasty of ceph to add that in without documenting
it, but I guess it got past reviewers so it was up to them to ack it
or point it out.

I think we should probably enforce a rule that dcache_lock not nest
inside i_lock :) Anybody wanting to do that in future had better have
a really good reason.

 
> The patch is 622386be in the for-next branch of
> 	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sage/ceph-client.git
> 
> Anyway, hope this helps!  

It does, thanks.

--
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/