On 01/28/2014 09:25 PM, Miao Xie wrote:
On tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:00:54 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 01/14/2014 07:31 AM, Miao Xie wrote:
We are sure that:
- one ordered extent just has one csum calculation worker, and no one
access the csum list during the csum calculation except the worker.
- we don't change the list and free the csum until no one reference
to the ordered extent
So it is safe to add csum without the lock.
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <mi...@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c | 5 -----
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c
index e4c3d56..396c6d1 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c
@@ -280,16 +280,11 @@ void btrfs_add_ordered_sum(struct inode *inode,
struct btrfs_ordered_extent *entry,
struct btrfs_ordered_sum *sum)
{
- struct btrfs_ordered_inode_tree *tree;
-
- tree = &BTRFS_I(inode)->ordered_tree;
- spin_lock_irq(&tree->lock);
list_add_tail(&sum->list, &entry->list);
WARN_ON(entry->csum_bytes_left < sum->len);
entry->csum_bytes_left -= sum->len;
if (entry->csum_bytes_left == 0)
wake_up(&entry->wait);
- spin_unlock_irq(&tree->lock);
}
/*
This blew up in xfstests so one of your assumptions is incorrect. Thanks,
I think it is because there is a bug in the other place. Please tell me
the case that can reproduce the problem.
It was one of the btrfs tests, I think btrfs/005 maybe? Turn on slab
debugging, that seemed to make a difference. Thanks,
Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
