On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 03:41:45PM GMT, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-08-21 at 17:47 +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > Port the __I_LRU_ISOLATING mechanism to use the new var event mechanism.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/inode.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
> > index d18e1567c487..c8a5c63dc980 100644
> > --- a/fs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/inode.c
> > @@ -510,8 +510,7 @@ static void inode_unpin_lru_isolating(struct inode *inode)
> > spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> > WARN_ON(!(inode->i_state & I_LRU_ISOLATING));
> > inode->i_state &= ~I_LRU_ISOLATING;
> > - smp_mb();
> > - wake_up_bit(&inode->i_state, __I_LRU_ISOLATING);
> > + inode_wake_up_bit(inode, __I_LRU_ISOLATING);
> > spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -519,13 +518,22 @@ static void inode_wait_for_lru_isolating(struct inode *inode)
> > {
> > lockdep_assert_held(&inode->i_lock);
> > if (inode->i_state & I_LRU_ISOLATING) {
> > - DEFINE_WAIT_BIT(wq, &inode->i_state, __I_LRU_ISOLATING);
> > - wait_queue_head_t *wqh;
> > -
> > - wqh = bit_waitqueue(&inode->i_state, __I_LRU_ISOLATING);
> > - spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> > - __wait_on_bit(wqh, &wq, bit_wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > - spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> > + struct wait_bit_queue_entry wqe;
> > + struct wait_queue_head *wq_head;
> > +
> > + wq_head = inode_bit_waitqueue(&wqe, inode, __I_LRU_ISOLATING);
> > + for (;;) {
> > + prepare_to_wait_event(wq_head, &wqe.wq_entry,
> > + TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > + if (inode->i_state & I_LRU_ISOLATING) {
> > + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> > + schedule();
> > + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > + break;
> > + }
>
> nit: personally, I'd prefer this, since you wouldn't need the brackets
> or the continue:
>
> if (!(inode->i_state & LRU_ISOLATING))
> break;
> spin_unlock();
> schedule();
Yeah, that's nicer. I'll use that.
