[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130124005816.bce599de.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:58:16 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
gnehzuil.liu@...il.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: allow for fs-specific objects to be pruned as part
of pruning inodes
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:32:31 +1100 Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
> Also, the superblock shrinker is designed around a direct 1:1:1
> dependency relationship between the superblock dentry, inode and "fs
> cache" objects. i.e. dentry pins inode pins fs cache object. It is
> designed to keep a direct balance of the three caches by ensuring
> they get scanned in amounts directly proportional to the relative
> differences in their object counts. That can't be done with
> separate shrinkers, hence the use of the superblock shrinker to
> define the dependent relationship between the caches.
I was staring at the code and at the 0e1fdafd9 changelog trying to work
out why prune_super() does its weird shrinker-in-a-shrinker thing. And
failing.
IOW it needs a code comment, please. Ideally one which explains *why*
"It is designed to keep a direct balance of the three caches...". What
would go wrong if the fs were to just register its own shrinker in the
expected manner?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists