Am Freitag, 10. Januar 2014, 10:22:29 schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:21:13AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > > In all three cases, new_inode_pseudo(), iget_locked() and > > > iget5_locked(), > > > we own the new inode exclusively at this point and therefore taking > > > ->i_lock to protect ->i_state/->i_hash against concurrent access is > > > superfluous. > > We'd still need some sort of barrier to make sure the state is visible > to all CPUs before it becomes visible, usually by another spin_unlock > happing later. If you have a workload where removing these is critical > please document these issues in the code and resubmit it with an explanation > of the workload where it helps. If it's just a cleanup I wouldn't bother > with it. The patch was indented as cleanup patch, but as you pointed out I've failed to think about the barrier. Let's drop the patch. :D Thanks, //richard -- 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
