From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/19] fs: Implement lazy LRU updates for inodes.
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 04:34:22 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101016173422.GA6840@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101016172924.GA3519@amd>
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 04:29:24AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:59:30PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I don't think the pointer check will work either. By the time we retake
> > the lru lock the inode might already have been reaped through a call
> > to invalidate_inodes. There's no way we can do anything with it after
>
> I don't think you're right. If we re take inode_lock, ensure it is on
> the LRU, and call the can_unuse checks, there is no more problem than
> the regular loop taking items from the LRU, AFAIKS.
>
> > iput. What we could do is using variant of can_unuse to decide to move
> > the inode to the front of the lru before doing the iput. That way
> > we'll get to it next after retaking the lru lock if it's still there.
>
> This might actually be the better approach anyway (even for upstream)
> -- it means we don't have to worry about the "check head element"
> heuristic of the LRU check which could get false negatives if there is
> a lot of concurrency on the LRU.
Oh hmm, but then you do have the double lock of the LRU lock.
if (can_unuse_after_iput(inode)) {
spin_lock(&inode_lock);
list_move(inode, list tail)
spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
}
iput(inode);
spin_lock(&inode_lock);
Is that worth it?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-16 17:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-16 8:13 Inode Lock Scalability V4 Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:13 ` [PATCH 01/19] fs: switch bdev inode bdi's correctly Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 9:30 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-16 16:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-16 8:13 ` [PATCH 02/19] kernel: add bl_list Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 9:51 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-16 16:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-16 8:13 ` [PATCH 03/19] fs: Convert nr_inodes and nr_unused to per-cpu counters Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:29 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-16 10:04 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 10:04 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 10:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-16 10:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-16 17:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-17 1:09 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-17 1:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-17 2:16 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:13 ` [PATCH 04/19] fs: Implement lazy LRU updates for inodes Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 9:29 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-16 16:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-16 17:29 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-16 17:34 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2010-10-17 0:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-17 0:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-17 2:09 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 1:53 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:13 ` [PATCH 05/19] fs: inode split IO and LRU lists Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 06/19] fs: Clean up inode reference counting Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 07/19] exofs: use iput() for inode reference count decrements Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 08/19] fs: rework icount to be a locked variable Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 09/19] fs: Factor inode hash operations into functions Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 10/19] fs: Introduce per-bucket inode hash locks Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 11/19] fs: add a per-superblock lock for the inode list Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 12/19] fs: split locking of inode writeback and LRU lists Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 13/19] fs: Protect inode->i_state with the inode->i_lock Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 14/19] fs: introduce a per-cpu last_ino allocator Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 15/19] fs: Make iunique independent of inode_lock Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 16/19] fs: icache remove inode_lock Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 17/19] fs: Reduce inode I_FREEING and factor inode disposal Dave Chinner
2010-10-17 1:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-17 2:49 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 4:13 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-17 4:35 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 5:13 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 6:52 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-17 7:05 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 23:39 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-18 21:27 ` Sage Weil
2010-10-19 3:54 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 18/19] fs: split __inode_add_to_list Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 8:14 ` [PATCH 19/19] fs: do not assign default i_ino in new_inode Dave Chinner
2010-10-16 9:09 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-16 9:09 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-16 16:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-18 9:11 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-18 14:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-16 17:55 ` Inode Lock Scalability V4 Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 2:47 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-17 2:55 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 2:57 ` Nick Piggin
2010-10-17 6:10 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-17 6:34 ` Nick Piggin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101016173422.GA6840@amd \
--to=npiggin@kernel.dk \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.