From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755658Ab0JHILH (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 04:11:07 -0400 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([134.117.69.58]:47373 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754827Ab0JHILF (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Oct 2010 04:11:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 04:11:04 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] fs: Reduce inode I_FREEING and factor inode disposal Message-ID: <20101008081104.GA2239@infradead.org> References: <1286515292-15882-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1286515292-15882-19-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1286515292-15882-19-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by canuck.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > After the inode scalability work, there is not a big reason to batch > up inodes to reclaim them, so we can dispose them as they are found > from the LRU. With similar reasoning, we can do the same during > unmount, completely removing the need for the dispose_list() > function. Given that two of the three callers already remove the inode from the per-sb list what about doing that in the third also and stop bothering with it in dispose_one_inode?