On 06/09/2015 06:55 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 08.06.2015 um 12:07 schrieb Dongsheng Yang:
- ubifs_assert(mutex_is_locked(&ui->ui_mutex));
if (!ui->dirty) {
+ if (!locked) {
+ /*
+ * It's a little tricky here, there is only one
+ * possible user of ubifs_dirty_inode did not do
+ * a budget for this inode. At the same time, this
+ * user is not holding the ui->ui_mutex. Then if
+ * we found ui->ui_mutex is not locked, we can say:
+ * we need to do a budget in ubifs_dirty_inode here.
+ */
+ struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .dirtied_ino = 1,
+ .dirtied_ino_d = ALIGN(ui->data_len, 8) };
+
+ ret = ubifs_budget_space(c, &req);
+ if (ret)
+ goto out;
+ }
So, this is the new case when ->dirty_inode() is called via generic_update_time()?
Did you research whether you can detect that case also by looking at the flags parameter?
I'd give I_DIRTY_TIME a try. This way you could get at least rid of the mutex_is_locked()
usage.
Thanx Richard, yes, we can use it to check if we need a budget here.
But without removing the conditional lock as you suggested in last mail,
that would not help a lot. Then I think I need to try more to find a
better way about this feature by looking more into the flags. :)
Thanx
Yang
Thanks,
//richard
.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
