-
David Howells authored
Locks of the dcache_lock were replaced by locks of dentry->d_lock in commits such as: 23044507 2fd6b7f5 as part of the RCU-based pathwalk changes, despite the fact that the caller (shrink_dcache_for_umount()) notes in the banner comment the reasons that d_lock is not necessary in these functions: /* * destroy the dentries attached to a superblock on unmounting * - we don't need to use dentry->d_lock because: * - the superblock is detached from all mountings and open files, so the * dentry trees will not be rearranged by the VFS * - s_umount is write-locked, so the memory pressure shrinker will ignore * any dentries belonging to this superblock that it comes across * - the filesystem itself is no longer permitted to rearrange the dentries * in this superblock */ So remove these locks. If the locks are actually necessary, then this banner comment should be altered instead. The hash table chains are protected by 1-bit locks in the hash table heads, so those shouldn't be a problem. Note that to make this work, __d_drop() has to be split so that the RCUwalk barrier can be avoided. This causes problems otherwise as it has an assertion that dentry->d_lock is locked - but there is no need for that as no one else can be trying to access this dentry, except to step over it (and that should be handled by d_free(), I think). Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
c6627c60