Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:05:02 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>, Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 29/52] fs: icache lock i_count
Message-ID: <20100630120502.GB21358@laptop>
References: <20100624030212.676457061@suse.de>
 <20100624030730.245992858@suse.de>
 <20100630072702.GF24712@dastard>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100630072702.GF24712@dastard>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1725
Lines: 46

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 05:27:02PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:02:41PM +1000, npiggin@suse.de wrote:
> > Protect inode->i_count with i_lock, rather than having it atomic.
> > Next step should also be to move things together (eg. the refcount increment
> > into d_instantiate, which will remove a lock/unlock cycle on i_lock).
> .....
> > Index: linux-2.6/fs/inode.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/inode.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/fs/inode.c
> > @@ -33,14 +33,13 @@
> >   * inode_hash_lock protects:
> >   *   inode hash table, i_hash
> >   * inode->i_lock protects:
> > - *   i_state
> > + *   i_state, i_count
> >   *
> >   * Ordering:
> >   * inode_lock
> >   *   sb_inode_list_lock
> >   *     inode->i_lock
> > - * inode_lock
> > - *   inode_hash_lock
> > + *       inode_hash_lock
> >   */
> 
> I thought that the rule governing the use of inode->i_lock was that
> it can be used anywhere as long as it is the innermost lock.
> 
> Hmmm, no references in the code or documentation. Google gives a
> pretty good reference:
> 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org/msg02584.html
> 
> Perhaps a different/new lock needs to be used here?

Well I just changed the order (and documented it to boot :)). It's
pretty easy to verify that LOR is no problem. inode hash is only
taken in a very few places so other code outside inode.c is fine to
use i_lock as an innermost lock.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/