[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130913201803.GU13318@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 21:18:03 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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 Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:00:00PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > - d_lru_shrink_move: move from the "global" lru list to a private shrinker list
> > - d_shrink_add/del: fairly obvious.
> >
> > And then "denty_lru_add/del" that actually take the current state into
> > account and do the right thing. Those we had before, I'm just
> > explaining the difference from the low-level operations that have
> > fixed "from this state to that" semantics
>
> Looks sane; FWIW, the variant I'm playing with uses two independent
> flags for "shrinker" and "per-sb", but AFAICS that doesn't yield better
> code.
Actually, it does yield slightly better code... Look - if you take your
patch and replace LRU_LIST | SHRINK_LIST combination with bare SHRINK_LIST
(which can't occur right now). Then all transitions turn into flipping
a single bit, check in dentry_lru_add() becomes if (!(flags & (SHRINK | LRU))
and dentry_lru_del() -- if (... & SHRINK) return ...; if (... & LRU) return ...
It can be done as a followup, anyway - better not mix that with fixes.
--
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