[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171206045254.GP26021@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 20:52:54 -0800
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Rehas Sachdeva <aquannie@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 72/73] xfs: Convert mru cache to XArray
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:45:49PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> The dquot code is just going to have to live with the fact that there's
> additional locking going on that it doesn't need. I'm open to getting
> rid of the irqsafety, but we can't give up the spinlock protection
> without giving up the RCU/lockdep analysis and the ability to move nodes.
> I don't suppose the dquot code can
Oops, thought I'd finished writing this paragraph.
I don't suppose the dquot code can be restructured to use the xa_lock to
protect, say, qi_dquots? I suspect not, since you wouldn't know which
of the three xarray locks to use.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists