On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 12:36:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > You can use trylock. Please see the patches in -mm to fix the umount
> > > race.
> >
> > I'm not sure what unmount race you are talking about.
> >
> > AFAICT, there is no race here - we've got a reference on the superblock so it
> > can't go away and the lru list is protected by the dcache_lock, so there's
> > nothing else we can race with. However, we can deadlock by taking the
> > s_umount lock here. So why even bother to try to take the lock when we don't
> > actually need it?
>
> Please read the thread at http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/4/2/101.
Ok, thanks for the pointer. it's a completely differnt sort of race you're
talking about ;)
I'll have to look at the -mm tree and how the locking is different
there before commenting further.
> > > > + if (__put_super_and_need_restart(sb) && count)
> > > > + goto restart;
> > >
> > > Comment please.
> >
> > I'm not sure what a comment needs to explain that the code doesn't.
> > Which bit do you think needs commenting?
>
> I was referring to the __put_super_and_need_restart() part.
Ok. i didn't think it necessary given it's use in several other places
and the comment at the head of __put_super_and_need_restart() explain
exactly what it does and when to use it. Comment added anyway.
> > > This should not be required with per super-block dentries. The only
> > > reason, I think we moved dentries to the tail is to club all entries
> > > from the sb together (to free them all at once).
> >
> > I think we still need to do that. We get called in contexts that aren't
> > related to unmounting, so we want these dentries to be the first
> > to be reclaimed from that superblock when we next call prune_dcache().
>
> Is it? I quickly checked the callers of shrink_dcache_sb() and all of
> them seem to be mount related. shrink_dcache_parent() is another story.
> Am I missing something? Code reference will be particularly useful.
I thought you were referring to shrink_dcache_parent(). At least, I
was, and the hunk of diff that your comment followed after was from
select_parent(). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we're
agreeing that it's doing the right thing in select_parent().
The modified shrink_dcache_sb() doesn't do do any list moving at all,
it simply frees all the dentries on the superblock in a single pass.....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
R&D Software Enginner
SGI Australian Software Group
-
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]
