[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzf-reQNSQt_fhHfUe_tB19n2qEa=Rd=wFEBJEVALmezA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 14:48:32 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@...com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@...com>,
George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
John Stoffel <john@...ffel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] dcache: Translating dentry into pathname without
taking rename_lock
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> I can take that, but I'm really not convinced that we need writer lock
> there at all. After all, if we really can get livelocks on that one,
> we would be getting them on d_lookup()...
d_lookup() does a _single_ path component. That's a *big* difference.
Sure, the hash chain that d_lookup() (well, __d_lookup()) ends up
walking is a bit more complicated than just following the dentry
parent pointer, but that's much harder to trigger than just creating a
really deep directory structure of single-letter nested directories,
and then doing a "getcwd()" that walks 1024+ parents, while another
thread is looping renaming things..
So I personally do feel a lot safer with the fallback to write locking here.
Especially since it's pretty simple, so there isn't really much downside.
Linus
--
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