Re: [PATCH 1/4] fs: protect inode->i_state with inode->i_lock

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 03:23:01PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>  	spin_lock(&inode_lock);
>  	list_for_each_entry(inode, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
> -		if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW))
> +		spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> +		if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW)) {
> +			spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>  			continue;
> +		}
> +		spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
>  		if (inode->i_mapping->nrpages == 0)
>  			continue;
>  		__iget(inode);

If you want to remove inode_lock from the lru scanning later you already
need to extend i_lock coverage to include __iget here.  Otherwise we
could race to mark the inode as I_FREEING or I_WILL_FREE before we
grabbed a reference after your patchset. 
--
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/