[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7070.1297563562@jrobl>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 11:19:22 +0900
From: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
To: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: vfs-scale, general questions (Re: NFS root lockups with -next 20110113)
Ian Kent:
> > - what is the right order of dget() and mntget()?
> > If I remember correctly, someone said "mntget() first and then
> > dget(). when putting, do in reverse" in the discussion when
> > path_{get,put}() were born. So it is called "the right order" in the
> > commit log.
> > It was many years ago. Is it still true? And should rcu-walk follow it
> > too? The current implementation doesn't seem to care about this order.
>
> I didn't spot that, where did you see this?
>
> I'm not sure about the get but I fairly sure the dput() has to be before
> the mntput() because the shrink_dcache_*() cleanup routines object to
> dentrys that have a reference count of more than one.
For dget - mntget, there are several such code. For example,
nameidata_dentry_drop_rcu()
{
struct dentry *parent = nd->path.dentry;
:::
parent->d_count++;
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
:::
mntget(nd->path.mnt);
:::
But I am not sure the "get" order is a problem.
Nick Piggin also replied and said dget and mntget is not a problem, and
I replied if I found such "put" order, I would write again.
J. R. Okajima
--
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