* should delete_inode be allowed to be called from shrink_dcache?
@ 2004-11-27 11:40 Vladimir Saveliev
2004-11-27 18:40 ` Al Viro
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Vladimir Saveliev @ 2004-11-27 11:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Al Viro; +Cc: linux-kernel
Hello
Is there anything wrong that
mkdir dir
cd dir
rmdir ../dir
ls file
cd ..
leaves after itself two dentries - negative one ("file") and dentry of
directory "dir" which is attached to inode of that directory?
After that a process may get into somefs_delete_inode trying to free
pages by shrinking dcache (it will first free negative dentry and then
its parent).
If process is doing that being already in somefs_write (for example)
some filesystems may have problems.
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: should delete_inode be allowed to be called from shrink_dcache?
2004-11-27 11:40 should delete_inode be allowed to be called from shrink_dcache? Vladimir Saveliev
@ 2004-11-27 18:40 ` Al Viro
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Al Viro @ 2004-11-27 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vladimir Saveliev; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 02:40:57PM +0300, Vladimir Saveliev wrote:
> Hello
>
> Is there anything wrong that
>
> mkdir dir
> cd dir
> rmdir ../dir
> ls file
> cd ..
>
> leaves after itself two dentries - negative one ("file") and dentry of
> directory "dir" which is attached to inode of that directory?
No, it's legitimate (and can happen in other scenarios).
> After that a process may get into somefs_delete_inode trying to free
> pages by shrinking dcache (it will first free negative dentry and then
> its parent).
> If process is doing that being already in somefs_write (for example)
> some filesystems may have problems.
Details, please... All filesystems I'm familiar with won't (AFAICS) have
any problems with that. What exactly do you have in mind? Note that
in a lot of areas you get GFP_NOFS allocations anyway - that's the primary
defense against deadlocks and it's almost always enough. The only trouble
I can recall more or less recently was hpfs - there we had (among shitpiles
of other races) several places that required explicit GFP_NOFS. Usually
it just works...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-11-27 18:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-11-27 11:40 should delete_inode be allowed to be called from shrink_dcache? Vladimir Saveliev
2004-11-27 18:40 ` Al Viro
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).