Re: inode_lock "decorative"?

Andrea Arcangeli (
Thu, 25 Nov 1999 20:27:25 +0100 (CET)

On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Eleonora Autore wrote:

>> > The access to last_ino is serialized by spin lock, so that
>> > it is allowed to be not-atomic.
>> >
>> > Real bug is inside grow_inodes(), which calls prune_dcache() in turn.
>> > And nobody took care of poor dcache in 2.3, so that it stands now
>> > as bone in throat and all similar operations require big kernel lock.
>what is grow_inodes()? I can't see anything called that (in 2.3.30-1).

There isn't. When I rewrote the inode allocation from scratch I got rid of
such stuff. Now the icache gets shrunk only when the memory goes low and
now the icache is populated only by _caching_ entities.

>I.e. get_empty_inode() looks SMP-safe to me. What am I missing?

You aren't missing nothing, it's SMP-safe and can be safely called without
the big kernel lock.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at