On Monday March 6, [email protected] wrote:
>
> This are two different problems which you adress with this and your first
> patch. This one is to prevent busy inodes on umouny, the first one was to get
> the reference counting on dentries right.
I think that solving the "busy inodes" problem is sufficient. The
reference count on dentries isn't *wrong* as someone is actually
holding a reference. It is just that generic_shutdown_super doesn't
expect anyone else to hold any references. Fixing the "busy inodes"
problem means that no-one else will be holding any references, so it
becomes a non-problem.
>
> Neil, did you actually read my patch for this one?!
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=114123870406751&w=2
No, I didn't :-( I obviously didn't do enough homework.
The significant differences seem to be:
- you test ->s_prunes inside the spinlock. I don't bother. Yours is
probably safer.
- You call wake_up every time through prune_one_dentry while I try to
limit the calls. As each call is a function call and a spinlock,
maybe at least guard it with
if(waitqueue_active()) ...
>
> What I don't like, is that you are serializing the work of shrink_dcache_*
> although they could work in parallel on different processors.
I don't see how I am parallelising anything. Multiple shrink_dcache_*
can still run. The only place that extra locking is done is in
generic_shutdown_super.
But what do you think of Balbir Singh's patch? I think it is less
intrusive and solves the problem just a well.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
