[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101021100706.GA9797@amd>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:07:06 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/21] fs: Implement lazy LRU updates for inodes
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:49:29AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> } else {
> /*
> - * The inode is clean, unused
> + * The inode is clean. If it is unused, then make sure
> + * that it is put on the LRU correctly as iput_final()
> + * does not move dirty inodes to the LRU and dirty
> + * inodes are removed from the LRU during scanning.
> */
> - list_move(&inode->i_list, &inode_unused);
> + list_del_init(&inode->i_list);
> + if (!atomic_read(&inode->i_count))
> + inode_lru_list_add(inode);
This "optimisation" is surely wrong. How could we have no reference
on the inode at this point?
> -static int can_unuse(struct inode *inode)
> -{
> - if (inode->i_state)
> - return 0;
> - if (inode_has_buffers(inode))
> - return 0;
> - if (atomic_read(&inode->i_count))
> - return 0;
> - if (inode->i_data.nrpages)
> - return 0;
> - return 1;
> -}
Avoiding the reclaim optimisation? As I said, I noticed some increased
scanning in heavy reclaim from removing this.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists