On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 11:22:18AM +0900, Kentaro Makita wrote:
> +/*
> + * Shrink the dentry LRU on a given superblock.
> + * @sb : superblock to shrink dentry LRU.
> + * @count: If count is NULL, we prune all dentries on superblock.
> + * @flags: If flags is non-zero, we need to do special processing based on
> + * which flags are set. This means we don't need to maintain multiple
> + * similar copies of this loop.
> + */
> +static void __shrink_dcache_sb(struct super_block *sb, int *count, int flags)
> +{
> + LIST_HEAD(referenced);
> + LIST_HEAD(tmp);
> + struct dentry *dentry;
> + int cnt = 0;
> +
> + BUG_ON(!sb);
> + BUG_ON((flags & DCACHE_REFERENCED) && count == NULL);
> + spin_lock(&dcache_lock);
> + if (count != NULL)
> + /* called from prune_dcache() and shrink_dcache_parent() */
> + cnt = *count;
I'd convert all the 'if (count == NULL)' to 'if (!count)' and same
for 'if (count != NULL)' to 'if (count)'....
> +restart:
> + if (count == NULL)
> + list_splice_init(&sb->s_dentry_lru, &tmp);
> + else {
Probably should add {} to the first branch here as well.
> + while (!list_empty(&sb->s_dentry_lru)) {
> + dentry = list_entry(sb->s_dentry_lru.prev,
> + struct dentry, d_lru);
> + BUG_ON(dentry->d_sb != sb);
> +
> + spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
> + /*
> + * If we are honouring the DCACHE_REFERENCED flag and the
> + * dentry has this flag set, don't free it. Clear the flag
> + * and put it back on the LRU
> + */
> + if ((flags & DCACHE_REFERENCED)
> + && (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_REFERENCED)) {
Indentation of the second line of the if is the same as the block of
code underneath it. Probably should read:
if ((flags & DCACHE_REFERENCED) &&
(dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_REFERENCED)) {
> + dentry->d_flags &= ~DCACHE_REFERENCED;
> + list_move_tail(&dentry->d_lru, &referenced);
> + spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> + } else {
> + list_move_tail(&dentry->d_lru, &tmp);
> + spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> + cnt--;
> + if (!cnt)
> + break;
if (--cnt == 0)
break;
> + }
> + }
> + }
I'm wondering if this loop is an excessively long time to be holding the
dcache_lock. I guess the hol dtime is limited by the size of *count being
passed in. I think we could also do a:
cond_resched_lock(&dcache_lock);
in the loop here to prevent this from occurring....
> + while (!list_empty(&tmp)) {
> + dentry = list_entry(tmp.prev, struct dentry, d_lru);
> + dentry_lru_del_init(dentry);
> + spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
> + /*
> + * We found an inuse dentry which was not removed from
> + * the LRU because of laziness during lookup. Do not free
> + * it - just keep it off the LRU list.
> + */
> + if (atomic_read(&dentry->d_count)) {
> + spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> + continue;
> + }
> + prune_one_dentry(dentry);
> + /* dentry->d_lock is dropped in prune_one_dentry() */
> + cond_resched_lock(&dcache_lock);
> + }
> + if ((count == NULL) && (!list_empty(&sb->s_dentry_lru)))
> + goto restart;
> + if (count != NULL)
> + *count = cnt;
if (count)
*count = cnt;
else if (!list_empty(&sb->s_dentry_lru))
goto restart;
> + if (!list_empty(&referenced))
> + list_splice(&referenced, &sb->s_dentry_lru);
> + spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> +}
> +
> /**
> * prune_dcache - shrink the dcache
> * @count: number of entries to try and free
> - * @sb: if given, ignore dentries for other superblocks
> - * which are being unmounted.
> *
> * Shrink the dcache. This is done when we need
> * more memory, or simply when we need to unmount
> @@ -425,111 +526,75 @@ static void prune_one_dentry(struct dent
> * all the dentries are in use.
> */
>
> -static void prune_dcache(int count, struct super_block *sb)
> +static void prune_dcache(int count)
> {
> - spin_lock(&dcache_lock);
> - for (; count ; count--) {
> - struct dentry *dentry;
> - struct list_head *tmp;
> - struct rw_semaphore *s_umount;
> + struct super_block *sb;
> + int w_count;
> + int unused = dentry_stat.nr_unused;
> + int prune_ratio;
> + int pruned;
>
> - cond_resched_lock(&dcache_lock);
> -
> - tmp = dentry_unused.prev;
> - if (sb) {
> - /* Try to find a dentry for this sb, but don't try
> - * too hard, if they aren't near the tail they will
> - * be moved down again soon
> - */
> - int skip = count;
> - while (skip && tmp != &dentry_unused &&
> - list_entry(tmp, struct dentry, d_lru)->d_sb != sb) {
> - skip--;
> - tmp = tmp->prev;
> - }
> - }
> - if (tmp == &dentry_unused)
> - break;
> - list_del_init(tmp);
> - prefetch(dentry_unused.prev);
> - dentry_stat.nr_unused--;
> - dentry = list_entry(tmp, struct dentry, d_lru);
> -
> - spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
> - /*
> - * We found an inuse dentry which was not removed from
> - * dentry_unused because of laziness during lookup. Do not free
> - * it - just keep it off the dentry_unused list.
> - */
> - if (atomic_read(&dentry->d_count)) {
> - spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> - continue;
> - }
> - /* If the dentry was recently referenced, don't free it. */
> - if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_REFERENCED) {
> - dentry->d_flags &= ~DCACHE_REFERENCED;
> - list_add(&dentry->d_lru, &dentry_unused);
> - dentry_stat.nr_unused++;
> - spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> + if (unused == 0 || count == 0)
> + return;
> + spin_lock(&dcache_lock);
> +restart:
> + if (count >= unused)
> + prune_ratio = 1;
> + else
> + prune_ratio = unused / count;
unused = 100,000, count = 128 => prune_ratio = 781.
if we have 3 filesystems with 70,000, 25,000 and 5,000 dentries a piece,
that gives us:
> + spin_lock(&sb_lock);
> + list_for_each_entry(sb, &super_blocks, s_list) {
Question on lock ordering of sb_lock vs dcache_lock - which is the inner
lock? Are the two of them held together anywhere else? (/me doesn't
have time to searchthe code right now).
> + if (sb->s_nr_dentry_unused == 0)
> continue;
> - }
> - /*
> - * If the dentry is not DCACHED_REFERENCED, it is time
> - * to remove it from the dcache, provided the super block is
> - * NULL (which means we are trying to reclaim memory)
> - * or this dentry belongs to the same super block that
> - * we want to shrink.
> + sb->s_count++;
> + /* Now, we reclaim unused dentrins with fairness.
> + * we reclaim them same percentage on each superblocks.
> + * we calculate number of dentries to scan on this sb
> + * based on following way, but impelementation is arranged
> + * to avoid overflow.
> + * number of dentries to scan on this sb =
> + * count * (number of dentries on this sb /
> + * number of dentries in the machine)
> */
> + spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
> + if (prune_ratio != 1)
> + w_count = (sb->s_nr_dentry_unused / prune_ratio) + 1;
> + else
> + w_count = sb->s_nr_dentry_unused;
> + pruned = w_count;
70,000 -> 90
25,000 -> 33
5,000 -> 7
Total = 130. So we will prune a small number more than is asked for. I guess
this isn't a big problem because we exit the loop if count <= 0.
Otherwise it's looking good.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
--
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
