* Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
> > And if we are into getting reference counts, why not solve it at a higher
> > level and get a reference count to 'x' to make sure it's safe to use? Then
> > we
> > could do:
> >
> > lock(y->lock);
> > retry:
> > x = y->x;
> > if (!trylock(x->lock)) {
> > get_ref(x->count)
> > unlock(y->lock);
> > lock(x->lock);
> > lock(y->lock);
> > put_ref(x->count);
> > if (y->x != x) { /* Retry if 'x' got dropped meanwhile */
> > unlock(x->lock);
> > goto retry;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Or so.
>
> In the case of dcache::dentry_kill() we probably do not have to take
> refcounts
> and it might be actually counterproductive to do so. y->x, i.e.
> dentry->parent,
> cannot vanish under us, if I understand the life time rules correctly.
Ok, that's even better.
> Aside of that, yes, I was thinking about a similar scheme for that. I need
> some
> more time to grok all the rules there :)
Ok, great! :-)
I really don't think we need a new locking primitive - and with something like
the
above we could improve the code upstream as well and make it scale better in
some
scenarios, right?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
