Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:22:29 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fs/inode: No need to take ->i_lock right after alloc_inode() |
| |
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:21:13AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > In all three cases, new_inode_pseudo(), iget_locked() and iget5_locked(), > > we own the new inode exclusively at this point and therefore taking > > ->i_lock to protect ->i_state/->i_hash against concurrent access is > > superfluous.
We'd still need some sort of barrier to make sure the state is visible to all CPUs before it becomes visible, usually by another spin_unlock happing later. If you have a workload where removing these is critical please document these issues in the code and resubmit it with an explanation of the workload where it helps. If it's just a cleanup I wouldn't bother with it.
| |