From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 In-reply-to: (message from Miklos Szeredi on Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:59:00 +0200) Subject: Re: SLUB defrag pull request? References: <1223883004.31587.15.camel@penberg-laptop> <1223883164.31587.16.camel@penberg-laptop> <200810132354.30789.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:27:25 +0200 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: penberg@cs.helsinki.fi Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, hugh@veritas.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org List-ID: On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > > In many cases, yes it seems to. And some of the approaches even if > > they work now seem like they *might* cause problematic constraints > > in the design... Have Al and Christoph reviewed the dentry and inode > > patches? > > This d_invalidate() looks suspicious to me: And the things kick_inodes() does without any sort of locking look even more dangerous. It should be the other way round: first make sure nothing is referencing the inode, and _then_ start cleaning it up with appropriate locks held. See prune_icache(). Miklos -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org