From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/19] fs: Reduce inode I_FREEING and factor inode
 disposal
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:13:10 +1100
Message-ID: <20101017051310.GA22060@amd>
References: <1287216853-17634-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
 <1287216853-17634-18-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
 <20101017013047.GA4394@infradead.org>
 <20101017024923.GA6453@amd>
 <20101017041313.GJ32255@dastard>
 <20101017043514.GA21802@amd>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.145]:2304 "EHLO
	ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751243Ab0JQFNQ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:13:16 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20101017043514.GA21802@amd>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 03:35:14PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 03:13:13PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 01:49:23PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 09:30:47PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > >   * inode->i_lock is *always* the innermost lock.
> > > > >   *
> > > > > + * inode->i_lock is *always* the innermost lock.
> > > > > + *
> > > > 
> > > > No need to repeat, we got it..
> > > 
> > > Except that I didn't see where you fixed all the places where it is
> > > *not* the innermost lock. Like for example places that take dcache_lock
> > > inside i_lock.
> > 
> > I can't find any code outside of ceph where the dcache_lock is used
> > within 200 lines of code of the inode->i_lock. The ceph code is not
> > nesting them, though.
> 
> You mustn't have looked very hard? From ceph:
> 
>        spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
>        spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> 
> (and yes, acquisition side does go in i_lock->dcache_lock order)

A really quick grep reveals cifs is using GlobalSMBSeslock inside i_lock
too.

Everything uses i_size seqlock inside it, but I guess that's *always*
the inner innermost lock so it doesn't really count.