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]

Message-ID: <20101013133213.GC5263@infradead.org>
Date:	Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:32:13 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/18] fs: Implement lazy LRU updates for inodes.

>  			 */
>  			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.

--
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/