Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 15 Nov 2019 05:13:10 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc:     Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 28/28] xfs: rework unreferenced inode lookups
Message-ID: <20191115131310.GA18378@infradead.org>
References: <20191031234618.15403-1-david@fromorbit.com>
 <20191031234618.15403-29-david@fromorbit.com>
 <20191106221846.GE37080@bfoster>
 <20191114221602.GJ4614@dread.disaster.area>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191114221602.GJ4614@dread.disaster.area>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 09:16:02AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Can we tie these into the proper locking interface using flags? For
> > example, something like xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL|XFS_ILOCK_NONOWNER)
> > or xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL_NONOWNER) perhaps?
> 
> I'd prefer not to make this part of the common locking interface -
> it's a one off special use case, not something we want to progate
> elsewhere into the code.
> 
> Now that I think over it, I probably should have tagged this with
> patch with [RFC]. I think we should just get rid of the mrlock
> wrappers rather than add more, and that would simplify this a lot.

Yes, killing off the mrlock wrappers would be very helpful.  The only
thing we use them for is asserts on the locking state.  We could either
switch to lockdep_assert_held*, or just open code the write locked bit.
While it is a little more ugly I'd tend towards the latter given that
the locking asserts are too useful to require lockdep builds with their
performance impact.