On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:18:48 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The number of inodes allocated does not need to be tied to the
> addition or removal of an inode to/from a list. If we are not tied
> to a list lock, we could update the counters when inodes are
> initialised or destroyed, but to do that we need to convert the
> counters to be per-cpu (i.e. independent of a lock). This means that
> we have the freedom to change the list/locking implementation
> without needing to care about the counters.
>
>
> ...
>
> +int get_nr_inodes(void)
> +{
> + int i;
> + int sum = 0;
> + for_each_possible_cpu(i)
> + sum += per_cpu(nr_inodes, i);
> + return sum < 0 ? 0 : sum;
> +}
This reimplements percpu_counter_sum_positive(), rather poorly
If one never intends to use the approximate percpu_counter_read() then
one could initialise the counter with a really large batch value, for a
very small performance gain.
> +int get_nr_inodes_unused(void)
> +{
> + return inodes_stat.nr_unused;
> +}
>
> ...
>
> @@ -407,6 +407,8 @@ extern struct files_stat_struct files_stat;
> extern int get_max_files(void);
> extern int sysctl_nr_open;
> extern struct inodes_stat_t inodes_stat;
> +extern int get_nr_inodes(void);
> +extern int get_nr_inodes_unused(void);
These are pretty cruddy names. Unfotunately we don't really have a vfs
or "inode" subsystem name to prefix them with.
>
> ...
>
--
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
