On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 08:47:29AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 07:27:10AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Still digesting this. What trips me off a bit is the huge amount of > > duplication vs the inode reclaim mechanism. Did you look into sharing > > more code there and if yes what speaks against that? > > TBH I didn't look /too/ hard because once upon a time[1] Dave was aiming > to replace the inode reclaim tagging and iteration with an lru list walk > so I decided not to entangle the two. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20191009032124.10541-23-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Well, it isn't just the radix tree tagging, but mostly the infrastructure in iget that seems duplicates a lot of very delicate code. For the actual inactivation run: why don't we queue up the inodes for deactivation directly that, that use the work_struct in the inode to directly queue up the inode to the workqueue and let the workqueue manage the details? That also means we can piggy back on flush_work and flush_workqueue to force one or more entries out. Again I'm not saying I know this is better, but this is something that comes to my mind when reading the code.
