Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dcache: Don't take unnecessary lock in d_countupdate

[Waiman Long]

On 04/05/2013 01:12 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > @@ -635,22 +640,14 @@ struct dentry *dget_parent(struct dentry *dentry)
> >   {
> >   	struct dentry *ret;
> >
> > -repeat:
> > -	/*
> > -	 * Don't need rcu_dereference because we re-check it was correct under
> > -	 * the lock.
> > -	 */
> >   	rcu_read_lock();
> > -	ret = dentry->d_parent;
> > -	spin_lock(&ret->d_lock);
> > -	if (unlikely(ret != dentry->d_parent)) {
> > -		spin_unlock(&ret->d_lock);
> > -		rcu_read_unlock();
> > -		goto repeat;
> > -	}
> > +	ret = rcu_dereference(dentry->d_parent);
> >   	rcu_read_unlock();
> > +	if (dcount_inc_cmpxchg(ret))
> > +		return ret;
> > +	spin_lock(&ret->d_lock);
> And WTF is going to protect your "ret" from being freed just as you'd done
> rcu_read_unlock()?

I think I had made a mistake here. I should move the rcu_read_unlock() 
down to before the return statement as well as after the spin_lock(). 
Thank for pointing this out. I will fix that in the next version. 
Anything else that needs to be fixed?

Regards,
Longman
--
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/