From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: dcache shrink list corruption? Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:03:45 +0100 Message-ID: <20140430160345.GP18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20140429181610.GJ18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20140429191015.GK18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20140429211851.GA32204@dastard> <20140429214842.GL18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20140429232013.GM18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20140430023142.GN18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20140430040436.GO18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20140430154958.GC3113@tucsk.piliscsaba.szeredi.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , Dave Chinner , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel To: Miklos Szeredi Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140430154958.GC3113@tucsk.piliscsaba.szeredi.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 05:49:58PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > FWIW, the first two are really straightforward expanding the function > > into its only callsite. The last needs more splitup. Not sure if the > > following is good enough, but it ought to be at least somewhat cleaner. > > Combined change is identical to the original, so it doesn't invalidate > > the testing so far... > > Hmm, patches look okay, but I'm wondering if we really need the morgue list and > the waiting. Why not just skip dentries that are presently being handled by > dentry_kill()? Who will be freeing them? If we do that from dentry_kill(), we are back to needing them removed from shrink list by something called by dput(). And if we do that from shrink_dentry_list(), we'd damn better wait for dentry_iput() et.al. to finish.