lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [fs] inode_lru_isolate(): Move counter increment into spinlock section
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013, Dave Chinner wrote:

> If count_vm_events requires irqs to be disabled to behave correctly,
> then putting __count_vm_events under a spin lock is still not irq
> safe. Either way, this isn't in a performance critical path, so I'd
> much prefer the simpler, safer option be used rather than leave a
> landmine for other unsuspecting developers.


Subject: [fs] Use safe counter increment operations

The counter increment in inode_lru_isolate is happening with
preemption on using __count_vm_events making counter
increment races possible.

Use count_vm_events instead.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>

Index: linux/fs/inode.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/fs/inode.c 2013-12-20 12:02:14.409583380 -0600
+++ linux/fs/inode.c 2013-12-20 12:02:14.409583380 -0600
@@ -722,9 +722,9 @@ inode_lru_isolate(struct list_head *item
unsigned long reap;
reap = invalidate_mapping_pages(&inode->i_data, 0, -1);
if (current_is_kswapd())
- __count_vm_events(KSWAPD_INODESTEAL, reap);
+ count_vm_events(KSWAPD_INODESTEAL, reap);
else
- __count_vm_events(PGINODESTEAL, reap);
+ count_vm_events(PGINODESTEAL, reap);
if (current->reclaim_state)
current->reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab += reap;
}

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-20 19:41    [W:1.230 / U:0.872 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site