From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: OGAWA Hirofumi Subject: Re: The bug of iput() removal from flusher thread? Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 06:53:12 +0900 Message-ID: <876251tg3b.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> References: <8762541uyx.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <873906vumh.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <20121119145140.GA20532@quack.suse.cz> <20121119194102.GB20532@quack.suse.cz> <87a9udtiyk.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <20121119212448.GA29498@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Al Viro , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Kara Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121119212448.GA29498@quack.suse.cz> (Jan Kara's message of "Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:24:48 +0100") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Jan Kara writes: >> > static void inode_sync_complete(struct inode *inode) >> > { >> > + /* If inode is clean an unused, put it into LRU now. */ >> > + if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) && !atomic_read(&inode->i_count)) >> > + inode_lru_list_add(inode); >> >> IMHO, open coding this would be bad idea. > Do you mean creating a separate function for the above two lines? Yes. And the intent is to consolidate "when adds inode to LRU" with iput_final()'s one. >> And another one is I_REFERENCED. We really want to remove I_REFERENCED? > We don't want I_REFERENCED set - noone used the inode. But looking into > the code with fresh eyes, the fix isn't as simple as I thought. First I > need to check MS_ACTIVE and second I need to check I_FREEING... So the > condition will be complex enough to warrant a separate function. I can't see the issue (sync_filesystem() will wait I_DIRTY before MS_ACTIVE, and I_DIRTY prevents I_FREEING) though, it may be possible. -- OGAWA Hirofumi