Re: The bug of iput() removal from flusher thread?

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 02:48:51 +0100 Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> +/*
> + * Add inode to LRU if needed (inode is unused and clean).
> + *
> + * Needs inode->i_lock held.
> + */
> +void inode_add_lru(struct inode *inode)
> +{
> +	if (!(inode->i_state & (I_DIRTY | I_FREEING | I_SYNC)) &&
> +	    !atomic_read(&inode->i_count) && inode->i_sb->s_flags & MS_ACTIVE)
> +		inode_lru_list_add(inode);
> +}

Is i_lock sufficient to stabilise i_count?

<looks at the code a bit>

Is evict_inodes() wrong to test i_count outside i_lock?

invalidate_inodes() looks better.

can_unuse() must be called under i_lock, and is.  Apparently this
requirement was sufficiently obvious to not meed documenting.

prune_icache_sb() gets it right.

iput() gets it right.

So to answer my own question: yes, it is sufficient.  But a) the
comment for inode.i_lock is out of date and b) evict_inodes() looks
fishy.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/