| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: push the ilock into xfs_zero_eof |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 27 Mar 2012 01:48:27 -0400 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20120327011540.GS5091@dastard> |
| References: | <20120326211421.518374058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120326211603.654869525@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120327011540.GS5091@dastard> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:15:40PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > + xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL); > > error = xfs_bmapi_read(ip, last_fsb, 1, &imap, &nimaps, 0); > > + xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL); > > Does that even need to be an exclusive lock? a shared lock is all > that is needed to do a lookup, and this is just a lookup... It has to be a xfs_ilock_map_shared - but given that we hold the iolock exclusive anyway I didn't bother to optimize this further. Same for the second xfs_bmapi_read call. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS: Assertion failed: bp->b_bn != XFS_BUF_DADDR_NULL, file: fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c, line: 598, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 0/5] reduce exclusive ilock hold times, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: push the ilock into xfs_zero_eof, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 4/5] xfs: push the ilock into xfs_zero_eof, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |