[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b638d027-023a-d455-f77e-d66c10b8d9e4@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 20:07:59 +0530
From: Mukesh Ojha <mojha@...eaurora.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Query on shrink list
On 8/17/2018 6:28 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 03:39:22PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>> Hi Al Viro,
>>
>> Is there is reason we have kept data->found++, if the dentry already there
>> in shrink list ?
>>
>> static enum d_walk_ret select_collect(
>> ...
>> if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST) {
>> data->found++;
>> } else {
>> ..
>>
>> If the dentry is already there on shrink list, does it not mean that
>> data->found is already non-zero ?
> Nope. It can be on *another* shrink list - if two processes are doing
> that...
Ok, if we go out simply, letting others to do the job will break
`shrink_dcache_parent()`
and if someone touched that dentry made the refcount > 0 while it is on
shrink list
then owner will keep on looping in shrink_dentry_list() until refcount
becomes 0 .
Am i making sense here ?
Thanks.
Mukesh
>
>> Can't we just go out from here directly?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists