Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dcache: Don't take unnecessary lock in d_count update

[Waiman Long <Waiman.Long-VXdhtT5mjnY@public.gmane.org>]

On 04/05/2013 01:12 PM, Al Viro wrote:
>> @@ -635,22 +640,14 @@ struct dentry *dget_parent(struct dentry *dentry)
>>   {
>>   	struct dentry *ret;
>>
>> -repeat:
>> -	/*
>> -	 * Don't need rcu_dereference because we re-check it was correct under
>> -	 * the lock.
>> -	 */
>>   	rcu_read_lock();
>> -	ret = dentry->d_parent;
>> -	spin_lock(&ret->d_lock);
>> -	if (unlikely(ret != dentry->d_parent)) {
>> -		spin_unlock(&ret->d_lock);
>> -		rcu_read_unlock();
>> -		goto repeat;
>> -	}
>> +	ret = rcu_dereference(dentry->d_parent);
>>   	rcu_read_unlock();
>> +	if (dcount_inc_cmpxchg(ret))
>> +		return ret;
>> +	spin_lock(&ret->d_lock);
> And WTF is going to protect your "ret" from being freed just as you'd done
> rcu_read_unlock()?

I think I had made a mistake here. I should move the rcu_read_unlock() 
down to before the return statement as well as after the spin_lock(). 
Thank for pointing this out. I will fix that in the next version. 
Anything else that needs to be fixed?

Regards,
Longman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html