On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:35:20AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
> > index b931415..79bf47c 100644
> > --- a/fs/dcache.c
> > +++ b/fs/dcache.c
> > @@ -269,10 +269,10 @@ static void dentry_lru_move_list(struct dentry *dentry, struct list_head *list)
> > spin_lock(&dentry->d_sb->s_dentry_lru_lock);
> > if (list_empty(&dentry->d_lru)) {
> > list_add_tail(&dentry->d_lru, list);
> > - dentry->d_sb->s_nr_dentry_unused++;
> > - this_cpu_inc(nr_dentry_unused);
> > } else {
> > list_move_tail(&dentry->d_lru, list);
> > + dentry->d_sb->s_nr_dentry_unused--;
> > + this_cpu_dec(nr_dentry_unused);
> > }
> > spin_unlock(&dentry->d_sb->s_dentry_lru_lock);
>
> I suspect at this point it might be more obvious to simply remove
> dentry_lru_move_list. Just call dentry_lru_del to remove it from the
> lru, and then we can add it to the local dispose list without the need
> of any locking, similar to how it is done for inodes already.
Yeah, that is what is done in the next patch when converting to the
generic LRU list code. I can probably pull this back into this patch
and just remove dentry_lru_move_list(0 right here.
>
> > if (dentry->d_count) {
> > - dentry_lru_del(dentry);
> > spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> > continue;
> > }
> > @@ -789,6 +794,8 @@ relock:
> > spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> > } else {
> > list_move_tail(&dentry->d_lru, &tmp);
> > + this_cpu_dec(nr_dentry_unused);
> > + sb->s_nr_dentry_unused--;
>
> It might be more obvious to use __dentry_lru_del + an opencoded list_add
> here.
This goes away completely in the next patch, so I don't think it
matters that much...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>