On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:52:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:18:38 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The inode moves between different lists protected by the inode_lock. Introduce > > a new lock that protects all of the lists (dirty, unused, in use, etc) that the > > inode will move around as it changes state. As this is mostly a list for > > protecting the writeback lists, name it wb_inode_list_lock and nest all the > > list manipulations in this lock inside the current inode_lock scope. > > All those spin_trylock()s are real ugly. They're unexplained in the > changelog and unexplained in code comments. > > I'd suggest that each such site have a comment explaining why we're > resorting to this. They're really a side effect of how I'm building up the locking in steps and then streamlining it in steps. Most of them disappear or get much improved as inode removal, rcu, etc greatly help with lock ordering. The intermediate steps are not supposed to be so pretty, so much as an easily verifiable "ok, we have enough locking to cover what inode_lock used to be protecting". -- 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
