Re: [patch 14/52] fs: dcache scale subdirs
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Thu Jun 24 2010 - 03:56:15 EST
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 13:02 +1000, npiggin@xxxxxxx wrote:
> plain text document attachment (fs-dcache-scale-d_subdirs.patch)
> Protect d_subdirs and d_child with d_lock, except in filesystems that aren't
> using dcache_lock for these anyway (eg. using i_mutex).
> XXX: probably don't need parent lock in inotify (because child lock
> should stabilize parent). Also, possibly some filesystems don't need so
> much locking (eg. of child dentry when modifying d_child, so long as
> parent is locked)... but be on the safe side. Hmm, maybe we should just
> say d_child list is protected by d_parent->d_lock. d_parent could remain
> protected with d_lock.
> XXX: leave dcache_lock in there until remove dcache_lock patch
This still suffers the problem John found, right?
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/