On 04/04/2013 10:19 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 02:51:43PM +0800, Sha Zhengju wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> @@ -884,6 +907,28 @@ relock:
>>> shrink_dentry_list(&tmp);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * Mark all the dentries as on being the dispose list so we don't think
>>> they are
>>> + * still on the LRU if we try to kill them from ascending the parent
>>> chain in
>>> + * try_prune_one_dentry() rather than directly from the dispose list.
>>> + */
>>> +static void
>>> +shrink_dcache_list(
>>> + struct list_head *dispose)
>>> +{
>>> + struct dentry *dentry;
>>> +
>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(dentry, dispose, d_lru) {
>>> + spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
>>> + dentry->d_flags |= DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST;
>>> + this_cpu_dec(nr_dentry_unused);
>>>
>>
>> Why here dec nr_dentry_unused again? Has it been decreased in the following
>> shrink_dcache_sb()?
>
> You are right, that's a bugi as we've already accounted for the
> dentry being pulled off the LRU list. Good catch.
>
Ok, I folded it in the original patch with the due credits for better
bisection.
--
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>