Re: [patch 29/52] fs: icache lock i_count

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:05:02 +1000 Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 05:27:02PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 01:02:41PM +1000, npiggin@xxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/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.

um, nesting a kernel-wide singleton lock inside a per-inode lock is
plain nutty.

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