linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/18] fs: Implement lazy LRU updates for inodes.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 16 Oct 2010 18:56:58 +1100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/18] fs: Implement lazy LRU updates for inodes.

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >  			 */
> >  			redirty_tail(inode);
> > -		} else if (atomic_read(&inode->i_count)) {
> > -			/*
> > -			 * The inode is clean, inuse
> > -			 */
> > -			list_move(&inode->i_list, &inode_in_use);
> >  		} else {
> > -			/*
> > -			 * The inode is clean, unused
> > -			 */
> > -			list_move(&inode->i_list, &inode_unused);
> > +			/* The inode is clean */
> > +			list_del_init(&inode->i_list);
> > +			inode_lru_list_add(inode);
> 
> Just noticed this when reviewing a later patch: why do we lose the
> i_count check here?  There's no point in adding an inode that is still
> in use onto the LRU - we'll just remove it again once we find it
> during LRU scanning.

I did it this way because we're already holding the lock. But with the
inode and lru lists locked seperately in a subsequent patch, it is
better to check the count, I agree.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/