On Fri, Mar 29 2013, Glauber Costa wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Before we split up the dcache_lru_lock, the unused dentry counter
> needs to be made independent of the global dcache_lru_lock. Convert
> it to per-cpu counters to do this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/dcache.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
> index fbfae008..f1196f2 100644
> --- a/fs/dcache.c
> +++ b/fs/dcache.c
> @@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ struct dentry_stat_t dentry_stat = {
> };
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, nr_dentry);
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, nr_dentry_unused);
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_SYSCTL) && defined(CONFIG_PROC_FS)
> static int get_nr_dentry(void)
> @@ -129,10 +130,20 @@ static int get_nr_dentry(void)
> return sum < 0 ? 0 : sum;
> }
>
> +static int get_nr_dentry_unused(void)
> +{
> + int i;
> + int sum = 0;
> + for_each_possible_cpu(i)
> + sum += per_cpu(nr_dentry_unused, i);
> + return sum < 0 ? 0 : sum;
> +}
Just checking... If cpu x is removed, then its per cpu nr_dentry_unused
count survives so we don't leak nr_dentry_unused. Right? I see code in
percpu_counter_sum_positive() to explicitly handle this case and I want
to make sure we don't need it here.
[snip]
--
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
