[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48944e3e-19ae-bf3d-e4d5-1e0b31a793a9@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 10:46:55 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/5] vfs: Use dlock list for superblock's inode list
On 09/17/2018 10:15 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> @@ -927,8 +921,6 @@ struct inode *new_inode(struct super_block *sb)
>> {
>> struct inode *inode;
>>
>> - spin_lock_prefetch(&sb->s_inode_list_lock);
>
> I think we can get rid of the spin_lock_prefetch call altogether as
> this is the
> only user left afaict.
You are right. I will send out an additional patch to get rid of the
spin_lock_prefetch() function.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists