On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 07:52:17AM -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote: > On 12/01/14 16:34, Dave Chinner wrote: > >From: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >vn_active only ever gets decremented, so it has a very large > >negative number. Make it track the inode count we currently have > >allocated properly so we can easily track the size of the inode > >cache via tools like PCP. > > > >Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > >--- > > fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c | 3 +++ > > fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 1 - > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > >diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c > >index 92ca910..8bc3d78 100644 > >--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c > >+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c > >@@ -128,6 +128,7 @@ xfs_inode_free( > > /* asserts to verify all state is correct here */ > > ASSERT(atomic_read(&ip->i_pincount) == 0); > > ASSERT(!xfs_isiflocked(ip)); > >+ XFS_STATS_DEC(vn_active); > > > > call_rcu(&VFS_I(ip)->i_rcu, xfs_inode_free_callback); > > } > > Would the inode allocated and freed in xfs_recover_inode_owner_change() > cause this the count to go negative? Good catch - it will. Recovering swap extent operations is pretty rare, so I wouldn't have noticed an off-by-one-or-two on a normal system where there are several thousand allocated and cached inodes even at idle. I'll fix it. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
