Re: [PATCH] fs/inode: No need to take ->i_lock right afteralloc_inode()

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:21:13AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > In all three cases, new_inode_pseudo(), iget_locked() and iget5_locked(),
> > we own the new inode exclusively at this point and therefore taking
> > ->i_lock to protect ->i_state/->i_hash against concurrent access is
> > superfluous.

We'd still need some sort of barrier to make sure the state is visible
to all CPUs before it becomes visible, usually by another spin_unlock
happing later.  If you have a workload where removing these is critical
please document these issues in the code and resubmit it with an explanation
of the workload where it helps.  If it's just a cleanup I wouldn't bother
with it.

--
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/