From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 02:24:49 +0000 From: Al Viro To: Shakeel Butt Cc: Greg Thelen , Jan Kara , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: remove might_sleep() from clear_inode() Message-ID: <20171108022448.GW21978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20171108004354.40308-1-shakeelb@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171108004354.40308-1-shakeelb@google.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 04:43:54PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote: > Commit 7994e6f72543 ("vfs: Move waiting for inode writeback from > end_writeback() to evict_inode()") removed inode_sync_wait() from > end_writeback() and commit dbd5768f87ff ("vfs: Rename end_writeback() > to clear_inode()") renamed end_writeback() to clear_inode(). After > these patches there is no sleeping operation in clear_inode(). So, > remove might_sleep() from it. Point, but... this is far from the worst annoyance in clear_inode(). Starting with "BUG_ON() under spin_lock_irq() is antisocial and not in a good way", of course, but that's not all - the whole cycling of ->tree_lock has already been done back in truncate_inode_pages_final() and we'd better have called that in all cases when ->i_data might have ever contained anything. The whole thing looks bogus these days... I wonder if we should simply move the remaining paranoia into destroy_inode() and get rid of the I_CLEAR completely... -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org