Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 9 Mar 2022 11:10:57 +0100
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, riteshh@linux.ibm.com, jack@suse.cz,
        tytso@mit.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] ext4: convert i_fc_lock to spinlock
Message-ID: <20220309101057.3uuix2gvjinobt3i@quack3.lan>
References: <20220308163319.1183625-1-harshads@google.com>
 <20220308163319.1183625-2-harshads@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220308163319.1183625-2-harshads@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 08-03-22 08:33:15, Harshad Shirwadkar wrote:
> From: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
> 
> Convert ext4_inode_info->i_fc_lock to spinlock to avoid sleeping
> in invalid contexts.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>

One comment below...

> @@ -972,9 +970,13 @@ static int ext4_fc_wait_inode_data_all(journal_t *journal)
>  
>  	spin_lock(&sbi->s_fc_lock);
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(pos, n, &sbi->s_fc_q[FC_Q_MAIN], i_fc_list) {
> +		spin_lock(&pos->i_fc_lock);
>  		if (!ext4_test_inode_state(&pos->vfs_inode,
> -					   EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING))
> +					   EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING)) {
> +			spin_unlock(&pos->i_fc_lock);
>  			continue;
> +		}
> +		spin_unlock(&pos->i_fc_lock);
>  		spin_unlock(&sbi->s_fc_lock);

Why do you add a lock here in a pure lock-conversion patch? Furthermore I
don't think the lock is needed...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR