[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120921224912.GA20960@dastard>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 08:49:12 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Guo Chao <yan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, dchinner@...hat.com, hch@...radead.org,
jack@...e.cz, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 Patch 0/4] fs/inode.c: optimization for inode lock usage
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:31:02PM +0800, Guo Chao wrote:
> This patchset optimizes several places which take the per inode spin lock.
> They have not been fully tested yet, thus they are marked as RFC.
Inodes are RCU freed. The i_lock spinlock on the i_state field forms
part of the memory barrier that allows the RCU read side to
correctly detect a freed inode during a RCU protected cache lookup
(hash list traversal for the VFS, or a radix tree traversal for XFS).
The i_lock usage around the hahs list operations ensures the hash
list operations are atomic with state changes so that such changes
are correctly detected during RCU-protected traversals...
IOWs, removing the i_lock from around the i_state transitions and
inode hash insert/remove/traversal operations will cause races in
the RCU lookups and result in incorrectly using freed inodes instead
of failing the lookup and creating a new one.
So I don't think this is a good idea at all...
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