From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/17] fs: Make last_ino, iunique independent of inode_lock Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 18:54:42 +1100 Message-ID: <20101016075442.GD19147@amd> References: <1285762729-17928-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1285762729-17928-10-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20101001060827.GI32349@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dave Chinner , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101001060827.GI32349@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 02:08:27AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:18:41PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Nick Piggin > > > > Before removing the inode_lock, we need to make the last_ino and iunique > > counters independent of the inode_lock. last_ino can be trivially converted to > > an atomic variable, while the iunique counter needs a new lock nested inside > > the inode_lock to provide the same protection that the inode_lock previously > > provided. > > Given that last_ino becomes a per-cpu construct only a few patches later > I think there's no point to make it an atomic_t here - just reorder the > per-cpu patch before the inode_lock removal. I wanted to avoid doing any of that until inode_lock is gone, but perhaps for this one it makes sense. At the very least, I'll merge the latter two patches into one, and perhaps this one too.