From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/35] fscache: Remove unused ->now_uncached callback Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 11:26:08 +0100 Message-ID: <10376.1496312768@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <20170601093245.29238-2-jack@suse.cz> <20170601093245.29238-1-jack@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 1EB33C04B93B In-Reply-To: <20170601093245.29238-2-jack@suse.cz> Content-ID: <10375.1496312768.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Jan Kara Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, Hugh Dickins , linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, Ryusuke Konishi , linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org, Bob Peterson , cluster-devel@redhat.com, Jaegeuk Kim , linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, tytso@mit.edu, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Ilya Dryomov , "Yan, Zheng" , ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, David Sterba , "Darrick J . Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Nadia Yvette Chambers Jan Kara wrote: > The callback doesn't ever get called. Remove it. Hmmm... I should perhaps be calling this. I'm not sure why I never did. At the moment, it doesn't strictly matter as ops on pages marked with PG_fscache get ignored if the cache has suffered an I/O error or has been withdrawn - but it will incur a performance penalty (the PG_fscache flag is checked in the netfs before calling into fscache). The downside of calling this is that when a cache is removed, fscache would go through all the cookies for that cache and iterate over all the pages associated with those cookies - which could cause a performance dip in the system. David -- 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: email@kvack.org