lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 06/18] fs: Clean up inode reference counting
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 03:20:51AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 04:21:20PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> >
> > Lots of filesystem code open codes the act of getting a reference to
> > an inode. Factor the open coded inode lock, increment, unlock into
> > a function iref(). Then rename __iget to iref_locked so that nothing
> > is directly incrementing the inode reference count for trivial
> > operations.
> >
> > Originally based on a patch from Nick Piggin.
>
> > +++ b/fs/anon_inodes.c
> > @@ -111,10 +111,9 @@ struct file *anon_inode_getfile(const char *name,
> > path.mnt = mntget(anon_inode_mnt);
> > /*
> > * We know the anon_inode inode count is always greater than zero,
> > - * so we can avoid doing an igrab() and we can use an open-coded
> > - * atomic_inc().
> > + * so we can avoid doing an igrab() by using iref().
>
> I don't think there's a point keeping this comment.

OK.

>
> > @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ static void inode_wait_for_writeback(struct inode *inode)
> >
> > /*
> > * Write out an inode's dirty pages. Called under inode_lock. Either the
> > - * caller has ref on the inode (either via __iget or via syscall against an fd)
> > + * caller has ref on the inode (either via iref_locked or via syscall against an fd)
>
> I'd say just drop the mentioning of how we got a reference to the inode,

OK.

> it's just too confusing in this context.
>
> > --- a/fs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/inode.c
> > @@ -313,11 +313,20 @@ static void init_once(void *foo)
> >
> > inode_init_once(inode);
> > }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iref_locked);
>
> I think the export is placed incorrectly here.

Fmeh - guilt has an annoying habit of applying patches silently
when there are context mismatches. I've fixed this mismatch about 5
times in the past 2 days, and it keeps creeping back in as I update
patches earlier in the series. I'll fix it up in the next pass.

> > +
> > +void iref(struct inode *inode)
> > +{
> > + spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> > + iref_locked(inode);
> > + spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iref);
>
>
> > +void iref_locked(struct inode *inode)
> > {
> > atomic_inc(&inode->i_count);
> > }
>
> Please add a kerneldoc comment for both exported functions.

OK.

> Also what's the point of taking inode_lock in iref when the only thing
> we do is an atomic_in? It's probably better only having iref for now
> and only introduce iref_locked once the non-atomic increment needs
> i_lock.

Because in the next couple of patches the atomic-ness goes away, and
the inode lock keeps everything "sane" until all the locking
conversion is completed.

> Also any chance to get an assert under a debug option the the reference
> count really is non-zero?

For iref()? Sure, but I think WARN_ON_ONCE() is better for the moment,
though.

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-08 09:49    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site