Re: [PATCH 04/21] fs: Implement lazy LRU updates for inodes

[Nick Piggin]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:49:29AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>  		} else {
>  			/*
> -			 * The inode is clean, unused
> +			 * The inode is clean. If it is unused, then make sure
> +			 * that it is put on the LRU correctly as iput_final()
> +			 * does not move dirty inodes to the LRU and dirty
> +			 * inodes are removed from the LRU during scanning.
>  			 */
> -			list_move(&inode->i_list, &inode_unused);
> +			list_del_init(&inode->i_list);
> +			if (!atomic_read(&inode->i_count))
> +				inode_lru_list_add(inode);

This "optimisation" is surely wrong. How could we have no reference
on the inode at this point?


> -static int can_unuse(struct inode *inode)
> -{
> -	if (inode->i_state)
> -		return 0;
> -	if (inode_has_buffers(inode))
> -		return 0;
> -	if (atomic_read(&inode->i_count))
> -		return 0;
> -	if (inode->i_data.nrpages)
> -		return 0;
> -	return 1;
> -}

Avoiding the reclaim optimisation? As I said, I noticed some increased
scanning in heavy reclaim from removing this.

--
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/