On Tue 18-10-16 13:20:13, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 06:08:22PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Currently, flushing of caches for DAX mappings was ignoring entry lock. > > So far this was ok (modulo a bug that a difference in entry lock could > > cause cache flushing to be mistakenly skipped) but in the following > > patches we will write-protect PTEs on cache flushing and clear dirty > > tags. For that we will need more exclusion. So do cache flushing under > > an entry lock. This allows us to remove one lock-unlock pair of > > mapping->tree_lock as a bonus. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <[email protected]> > > > @@ -716,15 +736,13 @@ static int dax_writeback_one(struct block_device > > *bdev, > > } > > > > wb_cache_pmem(dax.addr, dax.size); > > - > > - spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock); > > - radix_tree_tag_clear(page_tree, index, PAGECACHE_TAG_TOWRITE); > > - spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock); > > - unmap: > > +unmap: > > dax_unmap_atomic(bdev, &dax); > > + put_locked_mapping_entry(mapping, index, entry); > > return ret; > > > > - unlock: > > +put_unlock: > > I know there's an ongoing debate about this, but can you please stick a space > in front of the labels to make the patches pretty & to be consistent with the > rest of the DAX code?
OK, done. > Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <[email protected]> Thanks! Honza -- Jan Kara <[email protected]> SUSE Labs, CR _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
