From: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com
Cc: fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
f2fs <linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] f2fs: move the list_head initialization into the lock protection region
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:48:09 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <528C8559.6040909@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1384911101.26319.37.camel@kjgkr>
Hi Kim,
On 11/20/2013 09:31 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Gu,
>
> IMO, there is no reason to cover the list header by the lock.
> In any flows, sbi should have the header all the time.
Yes, you're right.
> What is your opinion?
Moving the list_head initialization into the lock protection region, so
that we can ignore the list change during the gap(initialization<-->use).
And on the other side, it can keep the code style uniform for better
maintenance.
Regards,
Gu
>
> Thanks,
>
> 2013-11-19 (화), 18:03 +0800, Gu Zheng:
>> Signed-off-by: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
>> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>> index f884589..1de70cc 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>> @@ -511,8 +511,8 @@ void add_dirty_dir_inode(struct inode *inode)
>> void remove_dirty_dir_inode(struct inode *inode)
>> {
>> struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_SB(inode->i_sb);
>> - struct list_head *head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>> - struct list_head *this;
>> +
>> + struct list_head *this, *head;
>>
>> if (!S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode))
>> return;
>> @@ -523,6 +523,7 @@ void remove_dirty_dir_inode(struct inode *inode)
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> + head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>> list_for_each(this, head) {
>> struct dir_inode_entry *entry;
>> entry = list_entry(this, struct dir_inode_entry, list);
>> @@ -544,11 +545,13 @@ void remove_dirty_dir_inode(struct inode *inode)
>>
>> struct inode *check_dirty_dir_inode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t ino)
>> {
>> - struct list_head *head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>> - struct list_head *this;
>> +
>> + struct list_head *this, *head;
>> struct inode *inode = NULL;
>>
>> spin_lock(&sbi->dir_inode_lock);
>> +
>> + head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>> list_for_each(this, head) {
>> struct dir_inode_entry *entry;
>> entry = list_entry(this, struct dir_inode_entry, list);
>> @@ -563,11 +566,13 @@ struct inode *check_dirty_dir_inode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t ino)
>>
>> void sync_dirty_dir_inodes(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>> {
>> - struct list_head *head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>> + struct list_head *head;
>> struct dir_inode_entry *entry;
>> struct inode *inode;
>> retry:
>> spin_lock(&sbi->dir_inode_lock);
>> +
>> + head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>> if (list_empty(head)) {
>> spin_unlock(&sbi->dir_inode_lock);
>> return;
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shape the Mobile Experience: Free Subscription
Software experts and developers: Be at the forefront of tech innovation.
Intel(R) Software Adrenaline delivers strategic insight and game-changing
conversations that shape the rapidly evolving mobile landscape. Sign up now.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63431311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com
Cc: f2fs <linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] f2fs: move the list_head initialization into the lock protection region
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:48:09 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <528C8559.6040909@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1384911101.26319.37.camel@kjgkr>
Hi Kim,
On 11/20/2013 09:31 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Gu,
>
> IMO, there is no reason to cover the list header by the lock.
> In any flows, sbi should have the header all the time.
Yes, you're right.
> What is your opinion?
Moving the list_head initialization into the lock protection region, so
that we can ignore the list change during the gap(initialization<-->use).
And on the other side, it can keep the code style uniform for better
maintenance.
Regards,
Gu
>
> Thanks,
>
> 2013-11-19 (화), 18:03 +0800, Gu Zheng:
>> Signed-off-by: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
>> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>> index f884589..1de70cc 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
>> @@ -511,8 +511,8 @@ void add_dirty_dir_inode(struct inode *inode)
>> void remove_dirty_dir_inode(struct inode *inode)
>> {
>> struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_SB(inode->i_sb);
>> - struct list_head *head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>> - struct list_head *this;
>> +
>> + struct list_head *this, *head;
>>
>> if (!S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode))
>> return;
>> @@ -523,6 +523,7 @@ void remove_dirty_dir_inode(struct inode *inode)
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> + head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>> list_for_each(this, head) {
>> struct dir_inode_entry *entry;
>> entry = list_entry(this, struct dir_inode_entry, list);
>> @@ -544,11 +545,13 @@ void remove_dirty_dir_inode(struct inode *inode)
>>
>> struct inode *check_dirty_dir_inode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t ino)
>> {
>> - struct list_head *head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>> - struct list_head *this;
>> +
>> + struct list_head *this, *head;
>> struct inode *inode = NULL;
>>
>> spin_lock(&sbi->dir_inode_lock);
>> +
>> + head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>> list_for_each(this, head) {
>> struct dir_inode_entry *entry;
>> entry = list_entry(this, struct dir_inode_entry, list);
>> @@ -563,11 +566,13 @@ struct inode *check_dirty_dir_inode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t ino)
>>
>> void sync_dirty_dir_inodes(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>> {
>> - struct list_head *head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>> + struct list_head *head;
>> struct dir_inode_entry *entry;
>> struct inode *inode;
>> retry:
>> spin_lock(&sbi->dir_inode_lock);
>> +
>> + head = &sbi->dir_inode_list;
>> if (list_empty(head)) {
>> spin_unlock(&sbi->dir_inode_lock);
>> return;
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-20 9:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-19 10:03 [PATCH 5/5] f2fs: move the list_head initialization into the lock protection region Gu Zheng
2013-11-19 10:03 ` Gu Zheng
2013-11-20 1:31 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2013-11-20 1:31 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2013-11-20 9:48 ` Gu Zheng [this message]
2013-11-20 9:48 ` Gu Zheng
2013-11-21 0:22 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2013-11-21 0:22 ` Jaegeuk Kim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=528C8559.6040909@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.