From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/17] fs: icache lock lru/writeback lists Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:16:40 +1000 Message-ID: <20100930061640.GZ5665@dastard> References: <1285762729-17928-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1285762729-17928-7-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20100929215240.feb118f3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Return-path: Received: from bld-mail13.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.98]:49402 "EHLO mail.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754067Ab0I3GQo (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 02:16:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100929215240.feb118f3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:52:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:18:38 +1000 Dave Chinner wrote: > > > The inode moves between different lists protected by the inode_lock. Introduce > > a new lock that protects all of the lists (dirty, unused, in use, etc) that the > > inode will move around as it changes state. As this is mostly a list for > > protecting the writeback lists, name it wb_inode_list_lock and nest all the > > list manipulations in this lock inside the current inode_lock scope. > > All those spin_trylock()s are real ugly. They're unexplained in the > changelog and unexplained in code comments. Yes, they are, but I don't know exactly why it is so trylock happy. I'll try to dig out the reason for it and: > I'd suggest that each such site have a comment explaining why we're > resorting to this. At least get this far. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com