Re: [RFC PATCH] shrink_dcache_parent() deadlock

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hmm. Even if they are never run in parallel, I think it would be much
> nicer to do it in both, just so that there would be a conceptual
> consistency of "when we remove the dentry from the LRU list and put it
> on our pruning list, we set the bit". That cacheline will be dirty
> anyway (due to the list move and getting the dentry lock), so setting
> a bit is not expensive - but having odd inconsistent ad-hoc rules is
> nasty.

Makes sense.

I'm testing the modified patch right now and will post shortly.

Thanks,
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/