On Thu, Sep 04 2025, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sept 2025 at 16:00, Luis Henriques <luis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Miklos,
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 04 2025, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 at 18:30, Luis Henriques <luis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> >> + if (!inval_wq && RB_EMPTY_NODE(&fd->node))
>> >> + return;
>> >
>> > inval_wq can change to zero, which shouldn't prevent removing from the rbtree.
>>
>> Maybe I didn't understood your comment, but isn't that what's happening
>> here? If the 'fd' is in a tree, it will be removed, independently of the
>> 'inval_wq' value.
>
> I somehow thought it was || not &&.
>
> But I still don't see the point. The only caller already checked
> RB_EMPTY_NODE, so that is false. No race possible since it's called
> form the destruction of the dentry, and so this expression is
> guaranteed to evaluate to false.
Fair enough. I'll drop that code.
>> (By the way, I considered using mutexes here instead. Do you have any
>> thoughts on this?)
>
> Use mutex where protected code might sleep, spin lock otherwise.
>
>>
>> What I don't understand in your comment is where you suggest these helpers
>> could be in a higher level. Could you elaborate on what exactly you have
>> in mind?
>
> E.g.
>
> void d_dispose_if_unused(struct dentry *dentry, struct list_head *dispose)
> {
> spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
> if (!dentry->d_lockref.count)
> to_shrink_list(dentry, dispose);
> spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> }
>
> Which is in fact taken from d_prune_aliases(), which could be modified
> to use this helper.
Oh! OK, got it. Thanks, I'll start working on v6 and try to include all
your suggestions.
Cheers,
--
Luís
