On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 03:49:32AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 04:21:28PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > We currently protect the per-inode state flags with the inode_lock.
> > Using a global lock to protect per-object state is overkill when we
> > coul duse a per-inode lock to protect the state. Use the
> > inode->i_lock for this, and wrap all the state changes and checks
> > with the inode->i_lock.
> >
> > Based on work originally written by Nick Piggin.
>
> > @@ -884,9 +897,9 @@ struct inode *new_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> > inode = alloc_inode(sb);
> > if (inode) {
> > spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> > - __inode_add_to_lists(sb, NULL, inode);
> > inode->i_ino = ++last_ino;
> > inode->i_state = 0;
> > + __inode_add_to_lists(sb, NULL, inode);
> > spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> > }
> > return inode;
>
> What's the point in doing this move?
hmmmm, let me think on that....
>
> > @@ -953,8 +966,8 @@ static struct inode *get_new_inode(struct super_block *sb,
> > if (set(inode, data))
> > goto set_failed;
> >
> > - __inode_add_to_lists(sb, b, inode);
> > inode->i_state = I_NEW;
> > + __inode_add_to_lists(sb, b, inode);
>
> Same here.
Ah, done thinking now! I was so the i_state field had been set
before the inode was added to various lists and potentially
accessable to other threads. I should probably add a comment to that
effect, right?
> Otherwise it looks good. But all this moving around of i_lock really
> hurts my brain. I guess I'll need to review the placement on a tree
> with the fully applied series again.
Probably best - I didn't get it right the first time, either, when
doing it patch by patch. I had to take that step back to analyse
where i'd screwed it up....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
