Re: [PATCH 03/18] fs: Implement lazy LRU updates for inodes.

[Nick Piggin]

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 09:32:13AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >  			 */
> >  			redirty_tail(inode);
> > -		} else if (atomic_read(&inode->i_count)) {
> > -			/*
> > -			 * The inode is clean, inuse
> > -			 */
> > -			list_move(&inode->i_list, &inode_in_use);
> >  		} else {
> > -			/*
> > -			 * The inode is clean, unused
> > -			 */
> > -			list_move(&inode->i_list, &inode_unused);
> > +			/* The inode is clean */
> > +			list_del_init(&inode->i_list);
> > +			inode_lru_list_add(inode);
> 
> Just noticed this when reviewing a later patch: why do we lose the
> i_count check here?  There's no point in adding an inode that is still
> in use onto the LRU - we'll just remove it again once we find it
> during LRU scanning.

I did it this way because we're already holding the lock. But with the
inode and lru lists locked seperately in a subsequent patch, it is
better to check the count, I agree.

--
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/