From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q2QMG2Bp103114 for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:16:02 -0500 Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 1MssztmTxkXU7vpz for ; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:15:59 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] xfs: reduce ilock hold times in xfs_file_aio_write_checks Message-ID: <20120326221559.GQ5091@dastard> References: <20120326211421.518374058@bombadil.infradead.org> <20120326211603.268269812@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120326211603.268269812@bombadil.infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 05:14:23PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > We do not need the ilock for generic_write_checks and the i_size read, > which are protected by i_mutex and/or iolock, so reduce the ilock > critical section to just the call to xfs_zero_eof. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig That answers one of the open questions I had about my patch - whether we needed to hold the ilock at all over generic_write_checks(). I wasn't 100% sure, but this patch confirms my thinking on it. Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs