Messages in this thread | | | From | kuznet@ms2 ... | Subject | Re: inode_lock "decorative"? | Date | Thu, 25 Nov 1999 22:53:14 +0300 (MSK) |
| |
Hello!
BTW Andrea, could you look at line in net/socket.c, touching i_count?
I added a comment there recently:
/* * The socket maintains a reference to the inode, so we * have to increment the count. * * It smells... In theory we should not make this not holding * inode_lock. This syncronization point is not better than * kernel lock. I see no problem now, this inode is our private * property. */ sock->inode->i_count++;
I wrote "I see no problem", but it is true only if this inode is really private i.e. VFS never changes i_count for some service purposes.
Also, is it difficult to make similar thing with d_alloc_root? They are also dummy, so that it does not require cleaning all of dcache. It would allow to shot the last kernel lock in net/...
Alexey
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |