"J. Hannken-Illjes" <hann...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de> wrote: > > I have not had time to follow your VFS changes, but can you explain why > > did you remove VOP_LOCK/VOP_UNLOCK in tmpfs_reclaim()? It was added to > > prevent from the racy access of tn_links. > > Hopefully a vnode lock is needed to access tn_links -- otherwise the > VOP_LOCK/UNLOCK in tmpfs_reclaim() didn't protect it ...
Yes, tn_links is modified with the vnode lock held. Unlocked access in VOP_RECLAIM() racing with the release of the last last reference, used to cause crashes due to premature reclamation attempts. Given that VOP_LOCK() acquires the vnode node, can you explain why this "didn't protect it"? > As this commit prevents other threads from obtaining a lock while > VOP_RECLAIM() is running the protection should be the same as before. You mean VOP_RECLAIM() is now called with the vnode lock held? Can you please add an assert in tmpfs_reclaim() which demonstrates that? Thanks. -- Mindaugas
