On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:53:30 +0800 Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:17:52PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > > > Then get_active_stripe wouldn't need to worry about device_lock at all and > > would only need to get the hash lock for the particular sector. That should > > make it a lot simpler. > > did you mean get_active_stripe() doesn't need device_lock for any code path? > How could it be safe? device_lock still protects something like handle_list, > delayed_list, which release_stripe() will use while a get_active_stripe can run > concurrently. Yes you will still need device_lock to protect list_del_init(&sh->lru), as well as the hash lock. Do you need device_lock anywhere else in there? NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
