On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 03:19:05AM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [ glommer: adapted for new LRU return codes ]
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Looks mostly mechanical with the main mess in the conversion of the
isolate function.
> + if (inode_has_buffers(inode) || inode->i_data.nrpages) {
> + __iget(inode);
> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> + spin_unlock(lru_lock);
> + if (remove_inode_buffers(inode)) {
> + unsigned long reap;
> + reap = invalidate_mapping_pages(&inode->i_data, 0, -1);
> + if (current_is_kswapd())
> + __count_vm_events(KSWAPD_INODESTEAL, reap);
> + else
> + __count_vm_events(PGINODESTEAL, reap);
> + if (current->reclaim_state)
> + current->reclaim_state->reclaimed_slab += reap;
> }
> + iput(inode);
> + spin_lock(lru_lock);
> + return LRU_RETRY;
> + }
Only concern is this and whether it can cause the lru_list_walk to
infinite loop if the inode is being continually used and the LRU list is
too small to win the race.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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>