Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] VFS bugfix: two read_inode() calles without clear_inode() call between | From | David Woodhouse <> | Date | Fri, 06 May 2005 12:08:49 +0100 |
| |
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/
| |