jblunck@xxxxxxx wrote:
Calling d_genocide() is only lowering the reference count of the dentries but
doesn't add them to the unused list.
Signed-off-by: Jan Blunck <jblunck@xxxxxxx>
---
fs/dcache.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: work-2.6/fs/dcache.c
===================================================================
--- work-2.6.orig/fs/dcache.c
+++ work-2.6/fs/dcache.c
@@ -1612,11 +1612,25 @@ resume:
this_parent = dentry;
goto repeat;
}
- atomic_dec(&dentry->d_count);
+ if (!list_empty(&dentry->d_lru)) {
+ dentry_stat.nr_unused--;
+ list_del_init(&dentry->d_lru);
+ }
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&dentry->d_count)) {
+ list_add(&dentry->d_lru, dentry_unused.prev);
+ dentry_stat.nr_unused++;
+ }
We could have dentries on the LRU list with non-zero d_count. If
we have a dentry on the LRU list with a count of 1, then the code
will remove it from LRU list and then add it back subsequently.
I think the condition below should be an else if
}
if (this_parent != root) {
next = this_parent->d_u.d_child.next;
- atomic_dec(&this_parent->d_count);
+ if (!list_empty(&this_parent->d_lru)) {
+ dentry_stat.nr_unused--;
+ list_del_init(&this_parent->d_lru);
+ }
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&this_parent->d_count)) {
+ list_add(&this_parent->d_lru, dentry_unused.prev);
+ dentry_stat.nr_unused++;
+ }
Ditto
this_parent = this_parent->d_parent;
goto resume;
}
d_genocide() now almost looks like select_parent(). I think we can share a lot
of code between the two.
--
Balbir Singh,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
