Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 8 Oct 2010 19:04:28 +1100 | From | Dave Chinner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 14/18] fs: Protect inode->i_state with th einode->i_lock |
| |
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 03:49:32AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 04:21:28PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> > > > > We currently protect the per-inode state flags with the inode_lock. > > Using a global lock to protect per-object state is overkill when we > > coul duse a per-inode lock to protect the state. Use the > > inode->i_lock for this, and wrap all the state changes and checks > > with the inode->i_lock. > > > > Based on work originally written by Nick Piggin. > > > @@ -884,9 +897,9 @@ struct inode *new_inode(struct super_block *sb) > > inode = alloc_inode(sb); > > if (inode) { > > spin_lock(&inode_lock); > > - __inode_add_to_lists(sb, NULL, inode); > > inode->i_ino = ++last_ino; > > inode->i_state = 0; > > + __inode_add_to_lists(sb, NULL, inode); > > spin_unlock(&inode_lock); > > } > > return inode; > > What's the point in doing this move?
hmmmm, let me think on that....
> > > @@ -953,8 +966,8 @@ static struct inode *get_new_inode(struct super_block *sb, > > if (set(inode, data)) > > goto set_failed; > > > > - __inode_add_to_lists(sb, b, inode); > > inode->i_state = I_NEW; > > + __inode_add_to_lists(sb, b, inode); > > Same here.
Ah, done thinking now! I was so the i_state field had been set before the inode was added to various lists and potentially accessable to other threads. I should probably add a comment to that effect, right?
> Otherwise it looks good. But all this moving around of i_lock really > hurts my brain. I guess I'll need to review the placement on a tree > with the fully applied series again.
Probably best - I didn't get it right the first time, either, when doing it patch by patch. I had to take that step back to analyse where i'd screwed it up....
Cheers,
Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com
| |