[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 11:46:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
Cc: cluster-devel@...hat.com, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
Tom Herbert <tom@...ntonium.net>
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH v2 0/2] gfs2: Stop using
rhashtable_walk_peek
----- Original Message -----
> Here's a second version of the patch (now a patch set) to eliminate
> rhashtable_walk_peek in gfs2.
>
> The first patch introduces lockref_put_not_zero, the inverse of
> lockref_get_not_zero.
>
> The second patch eliminates rhashtable_walk_peek in gfs2. In
> gfs2_glock_iter_next, the new lockref function from patch one is used to
> drop a lockref count as long as the count doesn't drop to zero. This is
> almost always the case; if there is a risk of dropping the last
> reference, we must defer that to a work queue because dropping the last
> reference may sleep.
>
> Thanks,
> Andreas
>
> Andreas Gruenbacher (2):
> lockref: Add lockref_put_not_zero
> gfs2: Stop using rhashtable_walk_peek
>
> fs/gfs2/glock.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> include/linux/lockref.h | 1 +
> lib/lockref.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.14.3
Hi,
The patches look good. The big question is whether to add them to this
merge window while it's still open. Opinions?
Acked-by: Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>
Regards,
Bob Peterson
Powered by blists - more mailing lists