Re: [patch] fs: avoid I_NEW inodes

[Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>]

On Wed 11-03-09 03:34:30, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 05:03:21PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Index: linux-2.6/fs/drop_caches.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/drop_caches.c
> > > +++ linux-2.6/fs/drop_caches.c
> > > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ static void drop_pagecache_sb(struct sup
> > >  
> > >  	spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> > >  	list_for_each_entry(inode, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
> > > -		if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE))
> > > +		if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW))
> > >  			continue;
> > >  		if (inode->i_mapping->nrpages == 0)
> > >  			continue;
> > > Index: linux-2.6/fs/inode.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/inode.c
> > > +++ linux-2.6/fs/inode.c
> > > @@ -356,6 +356,8 @@ static int invalidate_list(struct list_h
> > >  		if (tmp == head)
> > >  			break;
> > >  		inode = list_entry(tmp, struct inode, i_sb_list);
> > > +		if (inode->i_state & I_NEW)
> > > +			continue;
> >   If somebody is setting up inodes at this point, we are in serious
> > trouble I think. So WARN_ON would be more appropriate I think.
> 
> Really? Hmm, this is also called via flush_disk which seems like it
> can operate under a mounted filesystem?
  Ah, I was not following calls far enough. You're right.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR