Re: [PATCH] Fix shrink_dcache_parent() against shrink_dcache_memory() race (updated patch)

[Jan Blunck <jblunck@suse.de>]

On Thu, Mar 09, Kirill Korotaev wrote:

> commented your patch a bit.
> and attached a corrected version. please review it.
> 

Thanks! I'll send the corrected patch.

So, everythings fine now?


> > 	d_free(dentry);
> > 	if (parent != dentry)
> > 		dput(parent);
> > 	spin_lock(&dcache_lock);
> >+	sb->s_prunes--;
> >+	if (likely(!sb->s_prunes))
> <<< Is it possibe to do something like:
> if (unlikely(!sb->s_root && !sb->s_prunes))
> ?

Uh, I forgot about that one. You already complained about that before :(

> > void shrink_dcache_parent(struct dentry * parent)
> > {
> > 	int found;
> >+	struct super_block *sb = parent->d_sb;
> > 
> >+ again:
> > 	while ((found = select_parent(parent)) != 0)
> > 		prune_dcache(found);
> >+
> >+	/* If we are called from generic_shutdown_super() during
> >+	 * umount of a filesystem, we want to check for other prunes */
> >+	if (!sb->s_root && wait_on_prunes(sb))
> >+		goto again;
> <<<< I don't like this loop here as it looks like a hack for some 
> special case.
> better to move it to generic_shutdown() and omit sb->s_root check at all.
> 

Yes, looks a little cleaner though.

Regards,
	Jan

-- 
Jan Blunck                                               jblunck@suse.de
SuSE LINUX AG - A Novell company
Maxfeldstr. 5                                          +49-911-74053-608
D-90409 Nürnberg                                      http://www.suse.de
-
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/