Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:24:07 +1100 | From | David Chinner <> | Subject | Re: Race between generic_forget_inode() and sync_sb_inodes()? |
| |
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:07:06AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote: > > Hi David, > > On Friday November 30, dgc@sgi.com wrote: > > > > > > I came across this because I've been making changes to XFS to avoid the > > inode hash, and I've found that I need to remove the inode from the > > dirty list when setting I_WILL_FREE to avoid this race. I can't see > > how this race is avoided when inodes are hashed, so I'm wondering > > if we've just been lucky or there's something that I'm missing that > > means the above does not occur. > > Looking at inode.c in 2.6.23-mm1, in generic_forget_inode, I see code: > > if (!hlist_unhashed(&inode->i_hash)) { > if (!(inode->i_state & (I_DIRTY|I_SYNC))) > list_move(&inode->i_list, &inode_unused); > > so it looks to me like: > If the inode is hashed and dirty, then move it (off the s_dirty > list) to inode_unused.
That check is for if the inode is _not_ dirty or being sync, right? Or have I just not had enough coffee this morning?
Cheers,
Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group - 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/
| |