On 6/30/2017 4:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -1133,11 +1133,12 @@ void shrink_dcache_sb(struct super_block *sb)
LIST_HEAD(dispose);
freed = list_lru_walk(&sb->s_dentry_lru,
- dentry_lru_isolate_shrink, &dispose, UINT_MAX);
+ dentry_lru_isolate_shrink, &dispose, 1024);
this_cpu_sub(nr_dentry_unused, freed);
shrink_dentry_list(&dispose);
- } while (freed > 0);
+ cond_resched();
+ } while (list_lru_count(&sb->s_dentry_lru) > 0);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(shrink_dcache_sb);
I'll add a cc:stable to this one - a large dentry list is a relatively
common thing.
I'm assumng that [1/2] does not need to be backported, OK?
I think we should include [1/2] as well along with this patch, as this patch
is using list_lru_count(), which can return incorrect count if [1/2] is
not included.
Also, all the previous patches submitted for fixing this issue must be
dropped i.e,
mm/list_lru.c: use cond_resched_lock() for nlru->lock must be dropped.
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
