![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 18:18 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Using yield() to wait for a precisely defined event (clear_inode() > finishing) doesn't seem like a very good idea. Especially, since > Artem's patch will probably make it trigger more often. Agreed. Even before Artem's patch, we're still effectively busy-waiting for something which calls back into the file system's clear_inode method and may well sleep and perform I/O. > How about this (totally untested) patch? Even if I_LOCK is not set > initially, wake_up_inode() should do the right thing and wake up the > waiting task after clear_inode(). It shouldn't cause spurious > wakeups, since there should be no other reference to the inode. Since Artem introduced a wake_up_inode() in dispose_list(), your patch seems reasonable. -- dwmw2 - 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: 2005-05-06 13:12 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||