Re: Possible fix for lockup in drop_caches

[Michael Rubin]

On Dec 22, 2007 2:06 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Oh boy.  Do we really want to add all this stuff to JBD just for
> drop_caches which is a silly root-only broken-in-22-other-ways thing?
>
> Michael, might your convert-inode-lists-to-tree patches eliminate the need
> for taking inode_lock in drop_pagecache_sb()?  Probably not, as it uses an
> rbtree.  It would have been possible if it was using a radix-tree, I
> suspect..

You are correct. The rbtree will still req
>
> > -void __journal_unfile_buffer(struct journal_head *jh)
> > +void __journal_unfile_buffer(struct journal_head *jh,
> > +             struct buffer_head **dirty_bh)
> >  {
> > -     __journal_temp_unlink_buffer(jh);
> > +     __journal_temp_unlink_buffer(jh, dirty_bh);
> >       jh->b_transaction = NULL;
> >  }
>
> I suspect the code would end up simpler if __journal_unfile_buffer() were
> to take an additional ref on the bh which it placed at *dirty_bh.
>
> Callers of __journal_unfile_buffer() could then call
>
> void handle_dirty_bh(struct buffer_head *bh)
> {
>         if (bh) {
>                 jbd_mark_buffer_dirty(bh);
>                 put_bh(bh);
>         }
> }
>
> ?
>
--
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/