From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 72/73] xfs: Convert mru cache to XArray Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 20:52:54 -0800 Message-ID: <20171206045254.GP26021@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20171206004159.3755-1-willy@infradead.org> <20171206004159.3755-73-willy@infradead.org> <20171206012901.GZ4094@dastard> <20171206020208.GK26021@bombadil.infradead.org> <20171206031456.GE4094@dastard> <20171206044549.GO26021@bombadil.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=EDAzjCT0o/Y9Q6tvmEFj0X2wzxhSACnAmbCiMhkg9g8=; b=gYHInRW1obr4FytHsGhY/D7+2 eYwsUftI3Ax3JNwZ8nFMNDbTlQp18JXTetBkUhSHPI9wJ3UGyX3ZrQczyhAs3Dgfx8YgPw9B8tRP0 rI2vy9E2hupKhlz2r+pHm/92meXf5y7DPKRMin9Z3LIY1lvbwFaaMlGJdrEdn49wzPuH3vOVai5vR 4iLL0xPpX35k6u4Ne0vnnq8UoEOrzrL7/UE+UqUbs0uhOcgZu2Cg9iSqr+doUZ4drIFaat2owlfx0 invAXBlFhrJCU1sdmYnjKKQI/CxiG64v84lk4EZPhndbKirKoqr14QSa08eyP29xz4JcJnSEHuj95 Bz9oYzQHg==; Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171206044549.GO26021@bombadil.infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dave Chinner Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Ross Zwisler , Jens Axboe , Rehas Sachdeva , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:45:49PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > The dquot code is just going to have to live with the fact that there's > additional locking going on that it doesn't need. I'm open to getting > rid of the irqsafety, but we can't give up the spinlock protection > without giving up the RCU/lockdep analysis and the ability to move nodes. > I don't suppose the dquot code can Oops, thought I'd finished writing this paragraph. I don't suppose the dquot code can be restructured to use the xa_lock to protect, say, qi_dquots? I suspect not, since you wouldn't know which of the three xarray locks to use. -- 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