(In response to Luis' comment:) > Can you add a respective Fixes: tag? It was apparently present since LRU was added to xfs buffer cache via: commit 430cbeb86fdcbbdabea7d4aa65307de8de425350 [xfs: add a lru to the XFS buffer cache] But I wouldn't say this patch "fixes" that commit. What do you think? Should a fixes tag be added in this case? > Also what effects are observed by > the user when this happens on the kernel log? I haven't spotted any differences visible to user, nor in the kernel log. (In response to Brian's comment:) >> However, as per documentation, atomic_add_unless() returns _zero_ >> if the atomic value was originally equal to the specified *unsless* value. >> > Nit: unless Thanks very much for feedback. Since it's my very first upstream commit-proposal, I expected that some polish would be needed. > It might be worth pointing out in the commit log that currently isolated > buffers end up right back on the LRU once they are released, because > ->b_lru_ref remains elevated. Therefore, this patch essentially fixes > that circuitous route by leaving them on the LRU as originally intended. > Otherwise this looks Ok to me: So the final commit message could be: ~~~ Currently the xfs_buftarg_isolate() is causing an xfs_buffer with zero b_lru_ref, to take another trip around LRU, while isolating buffers with non-zero b_lru_ref. Additionally those isolated buffers end up right back on the LRU once they are released, because ->b_lru_ref remains elevated. Fix that circuitous route by leaving them on the LRU as originally intended. >> Signed-off-by: Vratislav Bendel <vbendel@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
