* Query on shrink list
@ 2018-08-17 10:09 Mukesh Ojha
2018-08-17 12:58 ` Al Viro
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Mukesh Ojha @ 2018-08-17 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Al Viro, linux-fsdevel, lkml
Hi Al Viro,
Is there is reason we have kept data->found++, if the dentry already
there in shrink list ?
static enum d_walk_ret select_collect(
...
if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST) {
data->found++;
} else {
..
If the dentry is already there on shrink list, does it not mean that
data->found is already non-zero ?
Can't we just go out from here directly?
Regards,
Mukesh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: Query on shrink list
2018-08-17 10:09 Query on shrink list Mukesh Ojha
@ 2018-08-17 12:58 ` Al Viro
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Al Viro @ 2018-08-17 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mukesh Ojha; +Cc: linux-fsdevel, lkml
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 03:39:22PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> Hi Al Viro,
>
> Is there is reason we have kept data->found++, if the dentry already there
> in shrink list ?
>
> static enum d_walk_ret select_collect(
> ...
> ������� if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST) {
> ��������������� data->found++;
> ������� } else {
> � ..
>
> If the dentry is already there on shrink list, does it not mean that
> data->found is already non-zero ?
Nope. It can be on *another* shrink list - if two processes are doing
that...
> Can't we just go out from here directly?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: Query on shrink list
@ 2018-08-17 12:58 ` Al Viro
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Al Viro @ 2018-08-17 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mukesh Ojha; +Cc: linux-fsdevel, lkml
On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 03:39:22PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> Hi Al Viro,
>
> Is there is reason we have kept data->found++, if the dentry already there
> in shrink list ?
>
> static enum d_walk_ret select_collect(
> ...
> if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST) {
> data->found++;
> } else {
> ..
>
> If the dentry is already there on shrink list, does it not mean that
> data->found is already non-zero ?
Nope. It can be on *another* shrink list - if two processes are doing
that...
> Can't we just go out from here directly?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: Query on shrink list
2018-08-17 12:58 ` Al Viro
(?)
@ 2018-08-17 14:37 ` Mukesh Ojha
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Mukesh Ojha @ 2018-08-17 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Al Viro; +Cc: linux-fsdevel, lkml
On 8/17/2018 6:28 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 03:39:22PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>> Hi Al Viro,
>>
>> Is there is reason we have kept data->found++, if the dentry already there
>> in shrink list ?
>>
>> static enum d_walk_ret select_collect(
>> ...
>> if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST) {
>> data->found++;
>> } else {
>> ..
>>
>> If the dentry is already there on shrink list, does it not mean that
>> data->found is already non-zero ?
> Nope. It can be on *another* shrink list - if two processes are doing
> that...
Ok, if we go out simply, letting others to do the job will break
`shrink_dcache_parent()`
and if someone touched that dentry made the refcount > 0 while it is on
shrink list
then owner will keep on looping in shrink_dentry_list() until refcount
becomes 0 .
Am i making sense here ?
Thanks.
Mukesh
>
>> Can't we just go out from here directly?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-08-17 16:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-08-17 10:09 Query on shrink list Mukesh Ojha
2018-08-17 12:58 ` Al Viro
2018-08-17 12:58 ` Al Viro
2018-08-17 14:37 ` Mukesh Ojha
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.