On 22/01/13 12:30PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 13-01-22 08:56:28, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> > No functionality change as such in this patch. This only refactors the
> > common piece of code which waits for t_updates to finish into a common
> > function named as jbd2_journal_wait_updates(journal_t *)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Just one nit, otherwise. Feel free to add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
>
> > @@ -1757,6 +1757,35 @@ static inline unsigned long jbd2_log_space_left(journal_t *journal)
> > return max_t(long, free, 0);
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Waits for any outstanding t_updates to finish.
> > + * This is called with write j_state_lock held.
> > + */
> > +static inline void jbd2_journal_wait_updates(journal_t *journal)
> > +{
> > + transaction_t *commit_transaction = journal->j_running_transaction;
> > +
> > + if (!commit_transaction)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&commit_transaction->t_handle_lock);
> > + while (atomic_read(&commit_transaction->t_updates)) {
> > + DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> > +
> > + prepare_to_wait(&journal->j_wait_updates, &wait,
> > + TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > + if (atomic_read(&commit_transaction->t_updates)) {
> > + spin_unlock(&commit_transaction->t_handle_lock);
> > + write_unlock(&journal->j_state_lock);
> > + schedule();
> > + write_lock(&journal->j_state_lock);
> > + spin_lock(&commit_transaction->t_handle_lock);
> > + }
> > + finish_wait(&journal->j_wait_updates, &wait);
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock(&commit_transaction->t_handle_lock);
> > +}
> > +
>
> I don't think making this inline makes sence. Neither the commit code nor
> jbd2_journal_lock_updates() are so hot that it would warrant this large
> inline function...
Yes, make sense. Thanks for the review.
Will do the needful in v2.
-ritesh
>
> Honza
>
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
> SUSE Labs, CR
