From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] fs: Lock the inode LRU list separately
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:58:22 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101028105822.GD2715@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101028102521.GA6141@infradead.org>
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 06:25:21AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > That doesn't happen because the counter is only modified when
> > the inode is moved on/off the list and there are checks to avoid
> > removing an inode that is not on the list. Also, the inode is not
> > removed from the LRU in dispose_one_inode - it is always done when
> > the inode is marked I_FREEING while the i_lock is held before
> > calling dispose_one_inode().
> >
> > Basically I wanted to remove the strange "inode is not on the LRU if
> > it is dirty or under writeback" accounting checks and make the
> > accounting symmetric with adding/removing the inodes from the LRU.
> > These are protected by list_empty() checks, so should always end up
> > with the correct accounting.
> >
> > hence the only special case now is prune_icache() which already
> > holds the inode_lru_lock() so can't call the helper. Besides, we
> > don't need any checks there because we know the inode is on the LRU
> > already....
>
> Indeed. What about adding a
>
> BUG_ON(!list_empty(&inode->i_lru));
>
> to evict to ensure this invariant?
Yup, sounds like a good idea.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-28 10:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-27 4:23 fs: break out inode LRU operations from node_lock Dave Chinner
2010-10-27 4:23 ` [PATCH 1/4] fs: protect inode->i_state with inode->i_lock Dave Chinner
2010-10-27 7:07 ` Christian Stroetmann
2010-10-27 8:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-27 4:23 ` [PATCH 2/4] fs: factor inode disposal Dave Chinner
2010-10-27 7:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-27 9:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-27 4:23 ` [PATCH 3/4] fs: Lock the inode LRU list separately Dave Chinner
2010-10-27 7:08 ` Christian Stroetmann
2010-10-27 9:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-27 22:24 ` Dave Chinner
2010-10-28 10:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-10-28 10:58 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2010-10-27 4:23 ` [PATCH 4/4] fs: remove inode_lock from iput_final and prune_icache Dave Chinner
2010-10-27 4:40 ` Al Viro
2010-10-27 4:47 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-27 5:25 ` Al Viro
2010-10-27 5:50 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-10-27 6:01 ` Al Viro
2010-10-27 6:09 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2010-10-27 7:11 ` Christian Stroetmann
2010-10-27 9:12 ` Dave Chinner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-10-27 23:02 fs: break out inode LRU operations from inode_lock V2 Dave Chinner
2010-10-27 23:02 ` [PATCH 3/4] fs: Lock the inode LRU list separately Dave Chinner
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=20101028105822.GD2715@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).