From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/18] fs: split __inode_add_to_list Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:05:37 +1100 Message-ID: <20101012120537.GD32255@dastard> References: <1286515292-15882-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20101009080854.GA15943@infradead.org> <20101012104727.GC32255@dastard> <20101012113130.GA24650@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101012113130.GA24650@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 07:31:30AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 09:47:27PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > The only reason XFS hashed the inodes was to avoid problems in the > > generic code that checked for unhashed inodes during clear_inode(). The > > evict() changeover moved that unhashed check into > > generic_drop_inode(), which the filesystem can override. Hence if > > you add a ->drop_inode() method for XFS that just checks the link > > count, we can avoid ha??hing the inodes altogether for XFS. > > > > I can add another patch on top of this one to do that if you want... > > It's unfortunately not that simple. Take a look at the unhashed check > in __mark_inode_dirty. Damn - I forgot about that one. Does anyone know why that check is there? > The drop_inode check could be avoided for > quite a long time now. What we could do however is the same hack as > JFS does in diReadSpecial(). Nasty, but effective. Worth considering, I think. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com