Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 09 May 2004 09:28:46 +0200 | From | Manfred Spraul <> | Subject | Re: dentry bloat. |
| |
Dipankar Sarma wrote:
>On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 12:27:50PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > >>And yes, removing d_movecount would be ok by then, as long as we re-test >>the parent inside d_lock (we don't need to re-test "hash", since if we >>tested the full name inside the lock, the hash had better match too ;) >> >> What's the prupose of d_move_count? AFAICS it protects against a double rename: first to different bucket, then back to original bucket. This changes the position of the dentry in the hash chain and a concurrent lookup would skip entries. d_lock wouldn't prevent that.
But I think d_bucket could be removed: for __d_lookup the test appears to be redundant with the d_move_count test. The remaining users are not performance critical, they could recalculate the bucket from d_parent and d_name.hash.
-- Manfred
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |