thanks again. BTW, out of curiosity why do you work on this?
this is much cleaner now and looks more like my original patch and is smaller/more beautifull with counters usage. Thanks.
Yes, it is heavily inspired by you patch.
By "live lock" I mean the situation when you are "locked" in shrink_dcache_parent() due to wait_on_prunes() always returns 1.However, with counters instead of list it is possible to create a live lock :( So I'm not sure it is really ok.
Hmm, I don't really get what you mean with "live lock".
thanks!BTW, what kernel is it for? 2.6.15 or 2.6.16-X?
http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git from
today.