On 04/15/2012 09:53 PM, Yunkai Zhang wrote:
> int object_cache_push(struct object_cache *oc)
> {
> struct object_cache_entry *entry, *t;
> + struct rb_root *inactive_dirty_tree;
> + struct list_head *inactive_dirty_list;
> int ret = SD_RES_SUCCESS;
>
> if (node_in_recovery())
> /* We don't do flushing in recovery */
> return SD_RES_SUCCESS;
>
> - list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, t, &oc->dirty_list, list) {
> + pthread_mutex_lock(&oc->lock);
> + switch_dirty_tree_and_list(oc,
> + &inactive_dirty_tree,
> + &inactive_dirty_list);
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&oc->lock);
> +
> + /* 1. for async flush, there is only one worker
> + * 2. for sync flush, Guest assure us of that only one sync
> + * request is issued in one of gateway worker threads
> + * So we need not to protect inactive dirty tree and list */
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, t, inactive_dirty_list, list) {
> ret = push_cache_object(oc->vid, entry->idx, entry->create);
> - if (ret != SD_RES_SUCCESS)
> - goto out;
> - pthread_mutex_lock(&oc->lock);
> - rb_erase(&entry->rb, &oc->dirty_rb);
> - list_del(&entry->list);
> - pthread_mutex_unlock(&oc->lock);
> + if (ret != SD_RES_SUCCESS) {
> + goto push_failed;
> + }
> + del_from_dirty_tree_and_list(entry,
> + inactive_dirty_tree,
> + inactive_dirty_list);
> free(entry);
> }
> -out:
> +push_failed:
> + pthread_mutex_lock(&oc->lock);
> + merge_dirty_tree_and_list(oc,
> + inactive_dirty_tree,
> + inactive_dirty_list);
> + pthread_mutex_unlock(&oc->lock);
> return ret;
Would be cleaner to put lock operation inside
switch_dirty_tree_and_list() and merge_dirty_tree_and_list().
Thanks,
Yuan
|
|