On Wed, 2025-09-17 at 21:25 +0200, Max Kellermann wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 9:20 PM Viacheslav Dubeyko Slava.Dubeyko@ibm.com wrote:
WARN_ON_ONCE(!queue_work(ceph_inode_to_fs_client(inode)->inode_wq,&ceph_inode(inode)->i_work));This function looks like ceph_queue_inode_work() [1]. Can we use ceph_queue_inode_work()?
No, we can not, because that function adds an inode reference (instead of donating the existing reference) and there's no way we can safely get rid of it (even if we would accept paying the overhead of two extra atomic operations).
This function can call iput() too. Should we rework it, then? Also, as a result, we will have two similar functions. And it could be confusing.
No. NOT calling iput() is the whole point of my patch. Did you read the patch description?
This function can call the iput:
void ceph_queue_inode_work(struct inode *inode, int work_bit) { struct ceph_fs_client *fsc = ceph_inode_to_fs_client(inode); struct ceph_client *cl = fsc->client; struct ceph_inode_info *ci = ceph_inode(inode); set_bit(work_bit, &ci->i_work_mask);
ihold(inode); if (queue_work(fsc->inode_wq, &ci->i_work)) { doutc(cl, "%p %llx.%llx mask=%lx\n", inode, ceph_vinop(inode), ci->i_work_mask); } else { doutc(cl, "%p %llx.%llx already queued, mask=%lx\n", inode, ceph_vinop(inode), ci->i_work_mask); iput(inode); <-- we can call iput here. } }
I am citing you: "NOT calling iput() is the whole point of my patch". This function can call iput(). And this is my question: Should we rework it, then?
Thanks, Slava.