On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 at 11:26, yangyun <yangyun50@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The `struct fuse_forget_link` is allocated outside `fuse_queue_forget()` > before this patch. This requires the allocation in advance. In some > cases, this struct is not needed but allocated, which contributes to > memory usage and performance degradation. Besides, this messes up the > code to some extent. So move the `fuse_forget_link` allocation inside > fuse_queue_forget with __GFP_NOFAIL. > > `fuse_force_forget()` is used by `readdirplus` before this patch for > the reason that we do not know how many 'fuse_forget_link' structures > will be allocated in advance when error happens. After this patch, this > function is not needed any more and can be removed. By this way, all > FUSE_FORGET requests are sent by using `fuse_queue_forget()` function as > e.g. virtiofs handles them differently from regular requests. The patch is nice and clean. However, I'm a bit worried about the inode eviction path, which can be triggered from memory reclaim. Allocating a small structure shouldn't be an issue, yet I feel that the old way of preallocating it on inode creation should be better. What do you think? Thanks, Miklos
