From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] libxfs: keep unflushable buffers off the cache MRUs
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 06:54:37 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160208195437.GJ27429@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160208100636.GA27683@infradead.org>
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 02:06:36AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > --- a/include/cache.h
> > +++ b/include/cache.h
> > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ enum {
> > #define CACHE_BASE_PRIORITY 0
> > #define CACHE_PREFETCH_PRIORITY 8
> > #define CACHE_MAX_PRIORITY 15
> > +#define CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY (CACHE_MAX_PRIORITY + 1)
>
> Sizing arrays based on, and iterating up to CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY seems
> rather odd. Maybe add a new
>
> #define CACHE_NR_PRIORITIES CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY
>
> and a comment explaining the magic to make it more obvious?
Ok.
> > +cache_move_to_dirty_mru(
> > + struct cache *cache,
> > + struct cache_node *node)
> > +{
> > + struct cache_mru *mru;
> > +
> > + mru = &cache->c_mrus[CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY];
> > +
> > + pthread_mutex_lock(&mru->cm_mutex);
> > + node->cn_priority = CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY;
> > + list_move(&node->cn_mru, &mru->cm_list);
> > + mru->cm_count++;
> > + pthread_mutex_unlock(&mru->cm_mutex);
> > +}
>
> Maybe it would better to just do a list_add here and leave the
> list_del to the caller to avoid needing to nest two different
> cm_mutex instances.
I'll have a look at it.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-08 19:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-04 23:05 [PATCH 1/7 v2] repair: big broken filesystems cause pain Dave Chinner
2016-02-04 23:05 ` [PATCH 1/7] repair: parallelise phase 7 Dave Chinner
2016-02-08 8:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-09 0:12 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-04 23:05 ` [PATCH 2/7] repair: parallelise uncertin inode processing in phase 3 Dave Chinner
2016-02-08 8:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-04 23:05 ` [PATCH 3/7] libxfs: directory node splitting does not have an extra block Dave Chinner
2016-02-05 14:20 ` Brian Foster
2016-02-08 9:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-04 23:05 ` [PATCH 4/7] libxfs: don't discard dirty buffers Dave Chinner
2016-02-08 9:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-04 23:05 ` [PATCH 5/7] libxfs: don't repeatedly shake unwritable buffers Dave Chinner
2016-02-08 9:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-04 23:05 ` [PATCH 6/7] libxfs: keep unflushable buffers off the cache MRUs Dave Chinner
2016-02-05 14:22 ` Brian Foster
2016-02-08 10:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-08 19:54 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2016-02-04 23:05 ` [PATCH 7/7] libxfs: reset dirty buffer priority on lookup Dave Chinner
2016-02-05 14:23 ` Brian Foster
2016-02-08 10:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=20160208195437.GJ27429@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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.