[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101028102521.GA6141@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 06:25:21 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] fs: Lock the inode LRU list separately
> That doesn't happen because the counter is only modified when
> the inode is moved on/off the list and there are checks to avoid
> removing an inode that is not on the list. Also, the inode is not
> removed from the LRU in dispose_one_inode - it is always done when
> the inode is marked I_FREEING while the i_lock is held before
> calling dispose_one_inode().
>
> Basically I wanted to remove the strange "inode is not on the LRU if
> it is dirty or under writeback" accounting checks and make the
> accounting symmetric with adding/removing the inodes from the LRU.
> These are protected by list_empty() checks, so should always end up
> with the correct accounting.
>
> hence the only special case now is prune_icache() which already
> holds the inode_lru_lock() so can't call the helper. Besides, we
> don't need any checks there because we know the inode is on the LRU
> already....
Indeed. What about adding a
BUG_ON(!list_empty(&inode->i_lru));
to evict to ensure this invariant?
--
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