On Mon 25-05-09 09:34:38, Jens Axboe wrote:
> This is a first step at introducing per-bdi flusher threads. We should
> have no change in behaviour, although sb_has_dirty_inodes() is now
> ridiculously expensive, as there's no easy way to answer that question.
> Not a huge problem, since it'll be deleted in subsequent patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/fs-writeback.c | 196 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> fs/super.c | 3 -
> include/linux/backing-dev.h | 9 ++
> include/linux/fs.h | 5 +-
> mm/backing-dev.c | 30 +++++++
> mm/page-writeback.c | 11 +--
> 6 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 84 deletions(-)
...
> @@ -225,9 +231,23 @@ int bdi_register_dev(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, dev_t dev)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(bdi_register_dev);
>
> +static void bdi_remove_from_list(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> +{
> + mutex_lock(&bdi_lock);
> + list_del_rcu(&bdi->bdi_list);
> + mutex_unlock(&bdi_lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * In case the bdi is freed right after unregister, we need to
> + * make sure any RCU sections have exited
> + */
> + synchronize_rcu();
> +}
> +
Is this RCU thing still valid? And in bdi_register_dev() as well...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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
