On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 02:23:30PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> (replying from a different ID as you didn't copy me on reply)
>
> On 6/20/07, Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:22:41 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> >
> >> +/*
> >> + * When propagating mount events to peer group, this is called under
> >> + * vfsmount_lock. Hence using GFP_ATOMIC for kmalloc here.
> >> + * TODO: Can we use a separate kmem cache for union_mount ?
> >> + */
> >> +struct union_mount *alloc_union_mount(struct vfsmount *src_mnt,
> >> + struct dentry *src_dentry, struct vfsmount *dst_mnt,
> >> + struct dentry *dst_dentry)
> >> +{
> >> + struct union_mount *u;
> >> + u = kmalloc(sizeof(struct union_mount), GFP_ATOMIC);
> >> + if (!u)
> >> + return u;
> >> + u->dst_mnt = mntget(dst_mnt);
> >> + u->dst_dentry = dget(dst_dentry);
> >> + u->src_mnt = src_mnt;
> >> + u->src_dentry = dget(src_dentry);
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&u->hash);
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&u->list);
> >> + return u;
> >> +}
> >
> >Hmm, you pin the dentries in memory until umount. This isn't good. Besides
> >that this doesn't work with file systems that do invalidate their
> >dentries. The file system must have a chance to replace the dentry in the
> >union structure.
>
> Yes, both top level and next level dentries are pinned until umount of
> the upper layer. I was thinking if we could prune these from
> prune_dcache(). What do you think ?
>
> Ok, I haven't thought about filesystem invalidating the dentries. Yet
> to understand the dentry invalidation, but would filesystem invalidate
> an inuse dentry ?
NFS, and quite possibly other network/cluster filesystems can encounter all
sort of odd conditions where the dentry might change, no?
Josef "Jeff" Sipek.
--
Hegh QaQ law'
quvHa'ghach QaQ puS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
