On 04/15/2013 01:38 AM, Greg Thelen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 08 2013, Glauber Costa wrote:From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> Convert the buftarg LRU to use the new generic LRU list and take advantage of the functionality it supplies to make the buffer cache shrinker node aware. Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> Conflicts with 3b19034d4f: fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c --- fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 167 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------ fs/xfs/xfs_buf.h | 5 +- 2 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 93 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c index 8459b5d..4cc6632 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c @@ -85,20 +85,14 @@ xfs_buf_vmap_len( * The LRU takes a new reference to the buffer so that it will only be freed * once the shrinker takes the buffer off the LRU. */ -STATIC void +static void xfs_buf_lru_add( struct xfs_buf *bp) { - struct xfs_buftarg *btp = bp->b_target; - - spin_lock(&btp->bt_lru_lock); - if (list_empty(&bp->b_lru)) { - atomic_inc(&bp->b_hold); - list_add_tail(&bp->b_lru, &btp->bt_lru); - btp->bt_lru_nr++; + if (list_lru_add(&bp->b_target->bt_lru, &bp->b_lru)) { bp->b_lru_flags &= ~_XBF_LRU_DISPOSE; + atomic_inc(&bp->b_hold); } - spin_unlock(&btp->bt_lru_lock); } /* @@ -107,24 +101,13 @@ xfs_buf_lru_add( * The unlocked check is safe here because it only occurs when there are not * b_lru_ref counts left on the inode under the pag->pag_buf_lock. it is there * to optimise the shrinker removing the buffer from the LRU and calling - * xfs_buf_free(). i.e. it removes an unnecessary round trip on the - * bt_lru_lock. + * xfs_buf_free(). */ -STATIC void +static void xfs_buf_lru_del( struct xfs_buf *bp) { - struct xfs_buftarg *btp = bp->b_target; - - if (list_empty(&bp->b_lru)) - return; - - spin_lock(&btp->bt_lru_lock); - if (!list_empty(&bp->b_lru)) { - list_del_init(&bp->b_lru); - btp->bt_lru_nr--; - } - spin_unlock(&btp->bt_lru_lock); + list_lru_del(&bp->b_target->bt_lru, &bp->b_lru); } /* @@ -151,18 +134,10 @@ xfs_buf_stale( bp->b_flags &= ~_XBF_DELWRI_Q; atomic_set(&(bp)->b_lru_ref, 0); - if (!list_empty(&bp->b_lru)) { - struct xfs_buftarg *btp = bp->b_target; - - spin_lock(&btp->bt_lru_lock); - if (!list_empty(&bp->b_lru) && - !(bp->b_lru_flags & _XBF_LRU_DISPOSE)) { - list_del_init(&bp->b_lru); - btp->bt_lru_nr--; - atomic_dec(&bp->b_hold); - } - spin_unlock(&btp->bt_lru_lock); - } + if (!(bp->b_lru_flags & _XBF_LRU_DISPOSE) && + (list_lru_del(&bp->b_target->bt_lru, &bp->b_lru))) + atomic_dec(&bp->b_hold); + ASSERT(atomic_read(&bp->b_hold) >= 1); } @@ -1498,83 +1473,95 @@ xfs_buf_iomove( * returned. These buffers will have an elevated hold count, so wait on those * while freeing all the buffers only held by the LRU. */ -void -xfs_wait_buftarg( - struct xfs_buftarg *btp) +static intstatic enum lru_status
Uggh, I converted the inode and dcache and forgot to convert xfs. Thanks for spotting, Greg!
-- 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
