From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/inode: No need to take ->i_lock right after
	alloc_inode()
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:22:29 +0100
Message-ID: <20140110092229.GA556@lst.de>
References: <1387054495-31498-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <1524545.iNFYXWHlaf@sandpuppy>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, dchinner@redhat.com, hch@lst.de,
	eric.dumazet@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1524545.iNFYXWHlaf@sandpuppy>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 11:21:13AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > In all three cases, new_inode_pseudo(), iget_locked() and iget5_locked(),
> > we own the new inode exclusively at this point and therefore taking
> > ->i_lock to protect ->i_state/->i_hash against concurrent access is
> > superfluous.

We'd still need some sort of barrier to make sure the state is visible
to all CPUs before it becomes visible, usually by another spin_unlock
happing later.  If you have a workload where removing these is critical
please document these issues in the code and resubmit it with an explanation
of the workload where it helps.  If it's just a cleanup I wouldn't bother
with it.