From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] libxfs: keep unflushable buffers off the cache MRUs
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 06:54:37 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160208195437.GJ27429@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160208100636.GA27683@infradead.org>
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 02:06:36AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > --- a/include/cache.h
> > +++ b/include/cache.h
> > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ enum {
> > #define CACHE_BASE_PRIORITY 0
> > #define CACHE_PREFETCH_PRIORITY 8
> > #define CACHE_MAX_PRIORITY 15
> > +#define CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY (CACHE_MAX_PRIORITY + 1)
>
> Sizing arrays based on, and iterating up to CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY seems
> rather odd. Maybe add a new
>
> #define CACHE_NR_PRIORITIES CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY
>
> and a comment explaining the magic to make it more obvious?
Ok.
> > +cache_move_to_dirty_mru(
> > + struct cache *cache,
> > + struct cache_node *node)
> > +{
> > + struct cache_mru *mru;
> > +
> > + mru = &cache->c_mrus[CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY];
> > +
> > + pthread_mutex_lock(&mru->cm_mutex);
> > + node->cn_priority = CACHE_DIRTY_PRIORITY;
> > + list_move(&node->cn_mru, &mru->cm_list);
> > + mru->cm_count++;
> > + pthread_mutex_unlock(&mru->cm_mutex);
> > +}
>
> Maybe it would better to just do a list_add here and leave the
> list_del to the caller to avoid needing to nest two different
> cm_mutex instances.
I'll have a look at it.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-08 19:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-04 23:05 [PATCH 1/7 v2] repair: big broken filesystems cause pain Dave Chinner
2016-02-04 23:05 ` [PATCH 1/7] repair: parallelise phase 7 Dave Chinner
2016-02-08 8:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-09 0:12 ` Dave Chinner
2016-02-04 23:05 ` [PATCH 2/7] repair: parallelise uncertin inode processing in phase 3 Dave Chinner
2016-02-08 8:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-04 23:05 ` [PATCH 3/7] libxfs: directory node splitting does not have an extra block Dave Chinner
2016-02-05 14:20 ` Brian Foster
2016-02-08 9:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-04 23:05 ` [PATCH 4/7] libxfs: don't discard dirty buffers Dave Chinner
2016-02-08 9:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-04 23:05 ` [PATCH 5/7] libxfs: don't repeatedly shake unwritable buffers Dave Chinner
2016-02-08 9:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-04 23:05 ` [PATCH 6/7] libxfs: keep unflushable buffers off the cache MRUs Dave Chinner
2016-02-05 14:22 ` Brian Foster
2016-02-08 10:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-02-08 19:54 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2016-02-04 23:05 ` [PATCH 7/7] libxfs: reset dirty buffer priority on lookup Dave Chinner
2016-02-05 14:23 ` Brian Foster
2016-02-08 10:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=20160208195437.GJ27429@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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