On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 06:13:13PM +0800, Hao Li wrote: > If generic_drop_inode() returns true, it means iput_final() can evict > this inode regardless of whether it is dirty or not. If we check > I_DONTCACHE in generic_drop_inode(), any inode with this bit set will be > evicted unconditionally. This is not the desired behavior because > I_DONTCACHE only means the inode shouldn't be cached on the LRU list. > As for whether we need to evict this inode, this is what > generic_drop_inode() should do. This patch corrects the usage of > I_DONTCACHE. > > This patch was proposed in [1]. > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200831003407.GE12096@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Signed-off-by: Hao Li <lihao2018.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! I think this looks good, but shouldn't we add? It seems like this is a bug right? Fixes: dae2f8ed7992 ("fs: Lift XFS_IDONTCACHE to the VFS layer") Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/inode.c | 3 ++- > include/linux/fs.h | 3 +-- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c > index 72c4c347afb7..4e45d5ea3d0f 100644 > --- a/fs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/inode.c > @@ -1625,7 +1625,8 @@ static void iput_final(struct inode *inode) > else > drop = generic_drop_inode(inode); > > - if (!drop && (sb->s_flags & SB_ACTIVE)) { > + if (!drop && !(inode->i_state & I_DONTCACHE) && > + (sb->s_flags & SB_ACTIVE)) { > inode_add_lru(inode); > spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); > return; > diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h > index e019ea2f1347..93caee80ce47 100644 > --- a/include/linux/fs.h > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h > @@ -2922,8 +2922,7 @@ extern int inode_needs_sync(struct inode *inode); > extern int generic_delete_inode(struct inode *inode); > static inline int generic_drop_inode(struct inode *inode) > { > - return !inode->i_nlink || inode_unhashed(inode) || > - (inode->i_state & I_DONTCACHE); > + return !inode->i_nlink || inode_unhashed(inode); > } > extern void d_mark_dontcache(struct inode *inode); > > -- > 2.28.0 > > >
