lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: dentry bloat.
Dipankar Sarma wrote:

>On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 12:27:50PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
>>And yes, removing d_movecount would be ok by then, as long as we re-test
>>the parent inside d_lock (we don't need to re-test "hash", since if we
>>tested the full name inside the lock, the hash had better match too ;)
>>
>>
What's the prupose of d_move_count?
AFAICS it protects against a double rename: first to different bucket,
then back to original bucket. This changes the position of the dentry in
the hash chain and a concurrent lookup would skip entries.
d_lock wouldn't prevent that.

But I think d_bucket could be removed: for __d_lookup the test appears
to be redundant with the d_move_count test. The remaining users are not
performance critical, they could recalculate the bucket from d_parent
and d_name.hash.

--
Manfred

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.101 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site