diff mbox series

[02/11] vfs: Remove unnecessary list_for_each_entry_safe() variants

Message ID 20231206060629.2827226-3-david@fromorbit.com (mailing list archive)
State Handled Elsewhere
Delegated to: Paul Moore
Headers show
Series vfs: inode cache scalability improvements | expand

Commit Message

Dave Chinner Dec. 6, 2023, 6:05 a.m. UTC 
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

evict_inodes() and invalidate_inodes() use list_for_each_entry_safe()
to iterate sb->s_inodes list. However, since we use i_lru list entry for
our local temporary list of inodes to destroy, the inode is guaranteed
to stay in sb->s_inodes list while we hold sb->s_inode_list_lock. So
there is no real need for safe iteration variant and we can use
list_for_each_entry() just fine.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
---
 fs/inode.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Comments

Al Viro Dec. 7, 2023, 2:26 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:31PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> 
> evict_inodes() and invalidate_inodes() use list_for_each_entry_safe()
> to iterate sb->s_inodes list. However, since we use i_lru list entry for
> our local temporary list of inodes to destroy, the inode is guaranteed
> to stay in sb->s_inodes list while we hold sb->s_inode_list_lock. So
> there is no real need for safe iteration variant and we can use
> list_for_each_entry() just fine.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>

ACKed-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Kent Overstreet Dec. 7, 2023, 4:18 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:31PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> 
> evict_inodes() and invalidate_inodes() use list_for_each_entry_safe()
> to iterate sb->s_inodes list. However, since we use i_lru list entry for
> our local temporary list of inodes to destroy, the inode is guaranteed
> to stay in sb->s_inodes list while we hold sb->s_inode_list_lock. So
> there is no real need for safe iteration variant and we can use
> list_for_each_entry() just fine.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
index f238d987dec9..17c50a75514f 100644
--- a/fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/inode.c
@@ -712,12 +712,12 @@  static void dispose_list(struct list_head *head)
  */
 void evict_inodes(struct super_block *sb)
 {
-	struct inode *inode, *next;
+	struct inode *inode;
 	LIST_HEAD(dispose);
 
 again:
 	spin_lock(&sb->s_inode_list_lock);
-	list_for_each_entry_safe(inode, next, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
+	list_for_each_entry(inode, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
 		if (atomic_read(&inode->i_count))
 			continue;
 
@@ -758,12 +758,12 @@  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(evict_inodes);
  */
 void invalidate_inodes(struct super_block *sb)
 {
-	struct inode *inode, *next;
+	struct inode *inode;
 	LIST_HEAD(dispose);
 
 again:
 	spin_lock(&sb->s_inode_list_lock);
-	list_for_each_entry_safe(inode, next, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
+	list_for_each_entry(inode, &sb->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
 		spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
 		if (inode->i_state & (I_NEW | I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE)) {
 			spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);