On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hmm. Even if they are never run in parallel, I think it would be much > nicer to do it in both, just so that there would be a conceptual > consistency of "when we remove the dentry from the LRU list and put it > on our pruning list, we set the bit". That cacheline will be dirty > anyway (due to the list move and getting the dentry lock), so setting > a bit is not expensive - but having odd inconsistent ad-hoc rules is > nasty. Makes sense. I'm testing the modified patch right now and will post shortly. Thanks, Miklos -- 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
