On 05/20/2014 06:45 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> + if (dirty) {
> + err = ext4_handle_dirty_super(handle, sb);
> + rc = ext4_mark_iloc_dirty(handle, inode, &iloc);
> + if (!err)
> + err = rc;
> + if (err) {
> + /*
> + * We have to remove inode from in-memory list if
> + * addition to on disk orphan list failed. Stray orphan
> + * list entries can cause panics at unmount time.
> + */
> + mutex_lock(&sbi->s_orphan_lock);
> + list_del(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_orphan);
> + mutex_unlock(&sbi->s_orphan_lock);
> + }
> + }
Sorry Jan, I just noticed this.
I don't believe you could this optimization either. Since you drop the s_oprhan_lock in between, you essentially have an interval where there is a stray in-memory orphan and could cause a panic as the comment above mentioned.
As for comments regarding ext4_mark_iloc() optimization, in your case since you are holding the i_mutex, should not that prevent the inode from being reclaimed?
Thanks,
Mak.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
