[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140429181610.GJ18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:16:10 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: dcache shrink list corruption?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 08:03:24PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Introducing a new per-sb lock should be OK.
>
> Another idea, which could have subtler effects, is simply not to kill
> a dentry that is on the shrink list (indicated by
> DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST), since it's bound to get killed anyway. But
> that's a change in behaviour...
Umm... You mean, if final dput() finds dentry already on shrink list,
just leave it there and return? Might get really painful - the code
that knows it's holding the last reference to already unhashed dentry
might get a nasty surprise when dput() returns before it's killed off.
--
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