On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 06:08:22PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > Currently, flushing of caches for DAX mappings was ignoring entry lock. > So far this was ok (modulo a bug that a difference in entry lock could > cause cache flushing to be mistakenly skipped) but in the following > patches we will write-protect PTEs on cache flushing and clear dirty > tags. For that we will need more exclusion. So do cache flushing under > an entry lock. This allows us to remove one lock-unlock pair of > mapping->tree_lock as a bonus. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > @@ -716,15 +736,13 @@ static int dax_writeback_one(struct block_device *bdev, > } > > wb_cache_pmem(dax.addr, dax.size); > - > - spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock); > - radix_tree_tag_clear(page_tree, index, PAGECACHE_TAG_TOWRITE); > - spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock); > - unmap: > +unmap: > dax_unmap_atomic(bdev, &dax); > + put_locked_mapping_entry(mapping, index, entry); > return ret; > > - unlock: > +put_unlock: I know there's an ongoing debate about this, but can you please stick a space in front of the labels to make the patches pretty & to be consistent with the rest of the DAX code? Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>