[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwMdZAVJLakx=xxY2QXaRdOxaPGMttU=P=2tH6+RNJeog@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:01:23 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm tree with Linus' tree
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> list_lru_add() can fail if it's already on the list; leaving the counter
> alone should've been conditional on that, setting the flag - no. Said
> that, it probably should be WARN_ON(!...); this_cpu_inc(); ... |= ...;
That WARN_ON_(!..) might indeed be better (maybe just WARN_ON_ONCE())..
That DCACHE_LRU_LIST bit needs to be coherent with "the dentry->d_lru
entry is on _some_ list" (whether it's the dentry one or the shrinker
one), so if that list_lru_add() ever fails, that would be a sign of
badness.
And that whole function is very performance-critical, to the point
where we not only don't want to call down to list_lry_add(), we don't
even want to touch the d_lru list entry itself to even _look_ if it's
empty or not, because that will take a cache miss. Which was obviously
the whole reason for that DCACHE_LRU_LIST bit existing...
Linus
--
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