lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] f2fs: fix removing cache entry within proper lock
From
Date
NAK, we don't need to do this.
There is no relationship between kmem_cache_* and free_nid_list_lock.
Moreover, IMO, it would be better unlock free_nid_list_lock as quickly
as possible in order to reduce lock contention.

2012-12-30 (일), 14:52 +0900, Namjae Jeon:
> From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
>
> Cache entry for free NID, is not getting removed under proper
> lock in case of error in add_free_nid. So, free the cache entry
> first before releasing the spinlock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Amit Sahrawat <a.sahrawat@samsung.com>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/node.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> index 5066bfd..09139fb 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> @@ -1227,8 +1227,8 @@ retry:
>
> spin_lock(&nm_i->free_nid_list_lock);
> if (__lookup_free_nid_list(nid, &nm_i->free_nid_list)) {
> - spin_unlock(&nm_i->free_nid_list_lock);
> kmem_cache_free(free_nid_slab, i);
> + spin_unlock(&nm_i->free_nid_list_lock);
> return 0;
> }
> list_add_tail(&i->list, &nm_i->free_nid_list);

--
Jaegeuk Kim
Samsung
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-02 04:01    [W:0.022 / U:22.908 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site