[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegtQd-eYqdSee7CwOFz=uViDV4=P+BmKR_Ciryz1wEe0FQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 15:13:37 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
Fox Chen <foxhlchen@...il.com>,
Brice Goglin <brice.goglin@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/7] kernfs: add kernfs_need_inode_refresh()
On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 at 10:52, Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net> wrote:
>
> Now the kernfs_rwsem read lock is held for kernfs_refresh_inode() and
> the i_lock taken to protect inode updates there can be some contention
> introduced when .permission() is called with concurrent path walks in
> progress.
>
> Since .permission() is called frequently during path walks it's worth
> checking if the update is actually needed before taking the lock and
> performing the update.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Reviewed-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists