lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSun, 24 Oct 2010 10:13:10 -0400
FromChristoph Hellwig <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 16/21] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the inode->i_lock
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:37:52PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> * invalidate_inodes() - collect I_FREEING/I_WILL_FREE on a separate
> list, then (after we'd evicted the stuff we'd decided to evict) wait until
> they get freed by whatever's freeing them already.

Note that we would only have to do this for the umount case. For others
it's pretty pointless.

But I think there's a better way to do it, and that's per-sb inode lru
lists. By adopting the scheme from prune_dcache we'd always have
s_umount exclusive for inode reclaims, and per defintion we would not
have any ongoing reclaim when we do enter umount. It would also allow
us to get rid of iprune_sem and the nasty unsolved locking issues it
causes.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-24 16:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2010