On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:51:43PM +0800, Sha Zhengju wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > @@ -884,6 +907,28 @@ relock:
> > shrink_dentry_list(&tmp);
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Mark all the dentries as on being the dispose list so we don't think
> > they are
> > + * still on the LRU if we try to kill them from ascending the parent
> > chain in
> > + * try_prune_one_dentry() rather than directly from the dispose list.
> > + */
> > +static void
> > +shrink_dcache_list(
> > + struct list_head *dispose)
> > +{
> > + struct dentry *dentry;
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(dentry, dispose, d_lru) {
> > + spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
> > + dentry->d_flags |= DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST;
> > + this_cpu_dec(nr_dentry_unused);
> >
>
> Why here dec nr_dentry_unused again? Has it been decreased in the following
> shrink_dcache_sb()?
You are right, that's a bugi as we've already accounted for the
dentry being pulled off the LRU list. Good catch.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
