All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: Wang Sheng-Hui <crosslonelyover@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 RESEND] fix return value for mb_cache_shrink_fn when
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:27:21 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C447CE9.20904@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C430830.9020903@gmail.com>

On 07/18/2010 08:57 AM, Wang Sheng-Hui wrote:
> Sorry to resend this patch. For the 2nd patch should
> be applied after this patch, I just send them together.
> 
> Following is the explanation of the patch:
> The comment for struct shrinker in include/linux/mm.h says
> "shrink...It should return the number of objects which remain in the
> cache."
> Please notice the word "remain".
> 
> In fs/mbcache.h, mb_cache_shrink_fn is used as the shrink function:
>        static struct shrinker mb_cache_shrinker = {
>                .shrink = mb_cache_shrink_fn,
>                .seeks = DEFAULT_SEEKS,
>        };
> In mb_cache_shrink_fn, the return value for nr_to_scan > 0 is the
> number of mb_cache_entry before shrink operation. It may because the
> memory usage for mbcache is low, so the effect is not so obvious.
> 
> Per Eric Sandeen, we should do the counting only once.
> Per Christoph Hellwig, we should use list_for_each_entry instead of
> list_for_each here.
> 
> Following patch is against 2.6.35-rc4. Please check it.
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui <crosslonelyover@gmail.com>

Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>

Thanks,
-Eric

> ---
>  fs/mbcache.c |   22 +++++++++++-----------
>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/mbcache.c b/fs/mbcache.c
> index ec88ff3..5697d9e 100644
> --- a/fs/mbcache.c
> +++ b/fs/mbcache.c
> @@ -201,21 +201,13 @@ mb_cache_shrink_fn(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  {
>  	LIST_HEAD(free_list);
>  	struct list_head *l, *ltmp;
> +	struct mb_cache *cache;
>  	int count = 0;
> 
> -	spin_lock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> -	list_for_each(l, &mb_cache_list) {
> -		struct mb_cache *cache > -			list_entry(l, struct mb_cache, c_cache_list);
> -		mb_debug("cache %s (%d)", cache->c_name,
> -			  atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count));
> -		count += atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count);
> -	}
>  	mb_debug("trying to free %d entries", nr_to_scan);
> -	if (nr_to_scan = 0) {
> -		spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> +	if (nr_to_scan = 0)
>  		goto out;
> -	}
> +
>  	while (nr_to_scan-- && !list_empty(&mb_cache_lru_list)) {
>  		struct mb_cache_entry *ce >  			list_entry(mb_cache_lru_list.next,
> @@ -229,6 +221,14 @@ mb_cache_shrink_fn(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  						   e_lru_list), gfp_mask);
>  	}
>  out:
> +	spin_lock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> +	list_for_each_entry(cache, &mb_cache_list, c_cache_list) {
> +		mb_debug("cache %s (%d)", cache->c_name,
> +			  atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count));
> +		count += atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count);
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> +
>  	return (count / 100) * sysctl_vfs_cache_pressure;
>  }
> 


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: Wang Sheng-Hui <crosslonelyover@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 RESEND] fix return value for mb_cache_shrink_fn when nr_to_scan > 0
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:27:21 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C447CE9.20904@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C430830.9020903@gmail.com>

On 07/18/2010 08:57 AM, Wang Sheng-Hui wrote:
> Sorry to resend this patch. For the 2nd patch should
> be applied after this patch, I just send them together.
> 
> Following is the explanation of the patch:
> The comment for struct shrinker in include/linux/mm.h says
> "shrink...It should return the number of objects which remain in the
> cache."
> Please notice the word "remain".
> 
> In fs/mbcache.h, mb_cache_shrink_fn is used as the shrink function:
>        static struct shrinker mb_cache_shrinker = {
>                .shrink = mb_cache_shrink_fn,
>                .seeks = DEFAULT_SEEKS,
>        };
> In mb_cache_shrink_fn, the return value for nr_to_scan > 0 is the
> number of mb_cache_entry before shrink operation. It may because the
> memory usage for mbcache is low, so the effect is not so obvious.
> 
> Per Eric Sandeen, we should do the counting only once.
> Per Christoph Hellwig, we should use list_for_each_entry instead of
> list_for_each here.
> 
> Following patch is against 2.6.35-rc4. Please check it.
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui <crosslonelyover@gmail.com>

Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>

Thanks,
-Eric

> ---
>  fs/mbcache.c |   22 +++++++++++-----------
>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/mbcache.c b/fs/mbcache.c
> index ec88ff3..5697d9e 100644
> --- a/fs/mbcache.c
> +++ b/fs/mbcache.c
> @@ -201,21 +201,13 @@ mb_cache_shrink_fn(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  {
>  	LIST_HEAD(free_list);
>  	struct list_head *l, *ltmp;
> +	struct mb_cache *cache;
>  	int count = 0;
> 
> -	spin_lock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> -	list_for_each(l, &mb_cache_list) {
> -		struct mb_cache *cache =
> -			list_entry(l, struct mb_cache, c_cache_list);
> -		mb_debug("cache %s (%d)", cache->c_name,
> -			  atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count));
> -		count += atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count);
> -	}
>  	mb_debug("trying to free %d entries", nr_to_scan);
> -	if (nr_to_scan == 0) {
> -		spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> +	if (nr_to_scan == 0)
>  		goto out;
> -	}
> +
>  	while (nr_to_scan-- && !list_empty(&mb_cache_lru_list)) {
>  		struct mb_cache_entry *ce =
>  			list_entry(mb_cache_lru_list.next,
> @@ -229,6 +221,14 @@ mb_cache_shrink_fn(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  						   e_lru_list), gfp_mask);
>  	}
>  out:
> +	spin_lock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> +	list_for_each_entry(cache, &mb_cache_list, c_cache_list) {
> +		mb_debug("cache %s (%d)", cache->c_name,
> +			  atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count));
> +		count += atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count);
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> +
>  	return (count / 100) * sysctl_vfs_cache_pressure;
>  }
> 


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: Wang Sheng-Hui <crosslonelyover@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	kernel-janitors <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 RESEND] fix return value for mb_cache_shrink_fn when nr_to_scan > 0
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 11:27:21 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C447CE9.20904@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C430830.9020903@gmail.com>

On 07/18/2010 08:57 AM, Wang Sheng-Hui wrote:
> Sorry to resend this patch. For the 2nd patch should
> be applied after this patch, I just send them together.
> 
> Following is the explanation of the patch:
> The comment for struct shrinker in include/linux/mm.h says
> "shrink...It should return the number of objects which remain in the
> cache."
> Please notice the word "remain".
> 
> In fs/mbcache.h, mb_cache_shrink_fn is used as the shrink function:
>        static struct shrinker mb_cache_shrinker = {
>                .shrink = mb_cache_shrink_fn,
>                .seeks = DEFAULT_SEEKS,
>        };
> In mb_cache_shrink_fn, the return value for nr_to_scan > 0 is the
> number of mb_cache_entry before shrink operation. It may because the
> memory usage for mbcache is low, so the effect is not so obvious.
> 
> Per Eric Sandeen, we should do the counting only once.
> Per Christoph Hellwig, we should use list_for_each_entry instead of
> list_for_each here.
> 
> Following patch is against 2.6.35-rc4. Please check it.
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui <crosslonelyover@gmail.com>

Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>

Thanks,
-Eric

> ---
>  fs/mbcache.c |   22 +++++++++++-----------
>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/mbcache.c b/fs/mbcache.c
> index ec88ff3..5697d9e 100644
> --- a/fs/mbcache.c
> +++ b/fs/mbcache.c
> @@ -201,21 +201,13 @@ mb_cache_shrink_fn(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  {
>  	LIST_HEAD(free_list);
>  	struct list_head *l, *ltmp;
> +	struct mb_cache *cache;
>  	int count = 0;
> 
> -	spin_lock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> -	list_for_each(l, &mb_cache_list) {
> -		struct mb_cache *cache =
> -			list_entry(l, struct mb_cache, c_cache_list);
> -		mb_debug("cache %s (%d)", cache->c_name,
> -			  atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count));
> -		count += atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count);
> -	}
>  	mb_debug("trying to free %d entries", nr_to_scan);
> -	if (nr_to_scan == 0) {
> -		spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> +	if (nr_to_scan == 0)
>  		goto out;
> -	}
> +
>  	while (nr_to_scan-- && !list_empty(&mb_cache_lru_list)) {
>  		struct mb_cache_entry *ce =
>  			list_entry(mb_cache_lru_list.next,
> @@ -229,6 +221,14 @@ mb_cache_shrink_fn(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
>  						   e_lru_list), gfp_mask);
>  	}
>  out:
> +	spin_lock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> +	list_for_each_entry(cache, &mb_cache_list, c_cache_list) {
> +		mb_debug("cache %s (%d)", cache->c_name,
> +			  atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count));
> +		count += atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count);
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> +
>  	return (count / 100) * sysctl_vfs_cache_pressure;
>  }
> 

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-07-19 16:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-07-18 13:57 [PATCH 1/2 RESEND] fix return value for mb_cache_shrink_fn when nr_to_scan Wang Sheng-Hui
2010-07-18 13:57 ` [PATCH 1/2 RESEND] fix return value for mb_cache_shrink_fn when nr_to_scan > 0 Wang Sheng-Hui
2010-07-18 13:57 ` Wang Sheng-Hui
2010-07-18 13:58 ` [PATCH 1/2 RESEND] fix return value for mb_cache_shrink_fn when shenghui
2010-07-18 13:58   ` [PATCH 1/2 RESEND] fix return value for mb_cache_shrink_fn when nr_to_scan > 0 shenghui
2010-07-18 13:58   ` shenghui
2010-07-19 16:27 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2010-07-19 16:27   ` Eric Sandeen
2010-07-19 16:27   ` Eric Sandeen
2010-07-20 16:49   ` [PATCH 1/2 RESEND] fix return value for mb_cache_shrink_fn when Eric Sandeen
2010-07-20 16:49     ` [PATCH 1/2 RESEND] fix return value for mb_cache_shrink_fn when nr_to_scan > 0 Eric Sandeen
2010-07-20 16:49     ` Eric Sandeen

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=4C447CE9.20904@redhat.com \
    --to=sandeen@redhat.com \
    --cc=crosslonelyover@gmail.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /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.