[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180307003403.GU18989@magnolia>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 16:34:03 -0800
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To: Vratislav Bendel <vbendel@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: Correctly invert xfs_buftarg LRU isolation logic
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 11:26:38AM +0100, Vratislav Bendel wrote:
> Due to an inverted logic mistake in xfs_buftarg_isolate()
> the xfs_buffers with zero b_lru_ref will take another trip
> around LRU, while isolating buffers with non-zero b_lru_ref.
>
> Additionally those isolated buffers end up right back on the LRU
> once they are released, because b_lru_ref remains elevated.
>
> Fix that circuitous route by leaving them on the LRU
> as originally intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vratislav Bendel <vbendel@...hat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Looks ok, tests ok...
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
--D
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> index d1da2ee9e6db..ac669a10c62f 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> @@ -1708,7 +1708,7 @@ xfs_buftarg_isolate(
> * 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)) {
> + if (atomic_add_unless(&bp->b_lru_ref, -1, 0)) {
> spin_unlock(&bp->b_lock);
> return LRU_ROTATE;
> }
> --
> 2.14.3
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists