On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> In many cases, yes it seems to. And some of the approaches even if
> they work now seem like they *might* cause problematic constraints
> in the design... Have Al and Christoph reviewed the dentry and inode
> patches?
This d_invalidate() looks suspicious to me:
+/*
+ * Slab has dropped all the locks. Get rid of the refcount obtained
+ * earlier and also free the object.
+ */
+static void kick_dentries(struct kmem_cache *s,
+ int nr, void **v, void *private)
+{
+ struct dentry *dentry;
+ int i;
+
+ /*
+ * First invalidate the dentries without holding the dcache lock
+ */
+ for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
+ dentry = v[i];
+
+ if (dentry)
+ d_invalidate(dentry);
+ }
I think it's wrong to unhash dentries while they are possibly still
being used. You can do the shrink_dcache_parent() here, but should
leave the unhashing to be done by prune_one_dentry(), after it's been
checked that there are no other users of the dentry.
Miklos
--
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
