[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180228190821.GA14201@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 19:08:21 +0000
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Vratislav Bendel <vbendel@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: Correctly invert xfs_buftarg LRU isolation logic
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 04:49:51PM +0100, Vratislav Bendel wrote:
> The function xfs_buftarg_isolate() used by xfs buffer schrinkers
> to determine whether a buffer should be isolated and disposed
> from LRU list, has inverted logic.
>
> Excerpt from xfs_buftarg_isolate():
> /*
> * Decrement the b_lru_ref count unless the value is already
> * zero. If the value is already zero, we need to reclaim the
> * buffer, otherwise it gets another trip through the LRU.
> */
> if (!atomic_add_unless(&bp->b_lru_ref, -1, 0)) {
> spin_unlock(&bp->b_lock);
> return LRU_ROTATE;
> }
>
> However, as per documentation, atomic_add_unless() returns _zero_
> if the atomic value was originally equal to the specified *unsless* value.
>
> Ultimately causing a xfs_buffer with ->b_lru_ref == 0, to take another
> trip around LRU, while isolating buffers with non-zero b_lru_ref.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vratislav Bendel <vbendel@...hat.com>
> CC: Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>
Can you add a respective Fixes: tag? Also what effects are observed by
the user when this happens on the kernel log?
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists