* [PATCH] fix return value for mb_cache_shrink_fn when nr_to_scan > 0
@ 2010-07-21 10:53 Wang Sheng-Hui
2010-07-21 14:00 ` Eric Sandeen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Wang Sheng-Hui @ 2010-07-21 10:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: sandeen, agruen, hch, linux-ext4, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel,
linux-mm, kernel-janitors
Sorry. regerated the patch, please check it.
I wrapped most code in single pair of spinlock ops for 2 reasons:
1) get spinlock 2 times seems time consuming
2) use single pair of spinlock ops can keep "count"
consistent for the shrink operation. 2 pairs may
get some new ces created by other processes.
Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui <crosslonelyover@gmail.com>
---
fs/mbcache.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/mbcache.c b/fs/mbcache.c
index ec88ff3..ee57aa3 100644
--- a/fs/mbcache.c
+++ b/fs/mbcache.c
@@ -201,21 +201,15 @@ mb_cache_shrink_fn(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
LIST_HEAD(free_list);
struct list_head *l, *ltmp;
+ struct mb_cache *cache;
int count = 0;
- spin_lock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
- list_for_each(l, &mb_cache_list) {
- struct mb_cache *cache =
- list_entry(l, struct mb_cache, c_cache_list);
- mb_debug("cache %s (%d)", cache->c_name,
- atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count));
- count += atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count);
- }
mb_debug("trying to free %d entries", nr_to_scan);
- if (nr_to_scan == 0) {
- spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
+
+ spin_lock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
+ if (nr_to_scan == 0)
goto out;
- }
+
while (nr_to_scan-- && !list_empty(&mb_cache_lru_list)) {
struct mb_cache_entry *ce =
list_entry(mb_cache_lru_list.next,
@@ -223,12 +217,18 @@ mb_cache_shrink_fn(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
list_move_tail(&ce->e_lru_list, &free_list);
__mb_cache_entry_unhash(ce);
}
- spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
list_for_each_safe(l, ltmp, &free_list) {
__mb_cache_entry_forget(list_entry(l, struct mb_cache_entry,
e_lru_list), gfp_mask);
}
out:
+ list_for_each_entry(cache, &mb_cache_list, c_cache_list) {
+ mb_debug("cache %s (%d)", cache->c_name,
+ atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count));
+ count += atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count);
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
+
return (count / 100) * sysctl_vfs_cache_pressure;
}
--
1.6.3.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fix return value for mb_cache_shrink_fn when nr_to_scan > 0
2010-07-21 10:53 Wang Sheng-Hui
@ 2010-07-21 14:00 ` Eric Sandeen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2010-07-21 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Wang Sheng-Hui
Cc: agruen, hch, linux-ext4, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel, linux-mm,
kernel-janitors
Wang Sheng-Hui wrote:
> Sorry. regerated the patch, please check it.
> I wrapped most code in single pair of spinlock ops for 2 reasons:
> 1) get spinlock 2 times seems time consuming
> 2) use single pair of spinlock ops can keep "count"
> consistent for the shrink operation. 2 pairs may
> get some new ces created by other processes.
>
Sorry, this patch appears to have whitespace cut & paste mangling.
More comments below.
> Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui <crosslonelyover@gmail.com>
> ---
> fs/mbcache.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/mbcache.c b/fs/mbcache.c
> index ec88ff3..ee57aa3 100644
> --- a/fs/mbcache.c
> +++ b/fs/mbcache.c
> @@ -201,21 +201,15 @@ mb_cache_shrink_fn(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> {
> LIST_HEAD(free_list);
> struct list_head *l, *ltmp;
> + struct mb_cache *cache;
> int count = 0;
>
> - spin_lock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> - list_for_each(l, &mb_cache_list) {
> - struct mb_cache *cache =
> - list_entry(l, struct mb_cache, c_cache_list);
> - mb_debug("cache %s (%d)", cache->c_name,
> - atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count));
> - count += atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count);
> - }
> mb_debug("trying to free %d entries", nr_to_scan);
> - if (nr_to_scan == 0) {
> - spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> +
> + spin_lock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> + if (nr_to_scan == 0)
> goto out;
> - }
> +
> while (nr_to_scan-- && !list_empty(&mb_cache_lru_list)) {
> struct mb_cache_entry *ce =
> list_entry(mb_cache_lru_list.next,
> @@ -223,12 +217,18 @@ mb_cache_shrink_fn(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> list_move_tail(&ce->e_lru_list, &free_list);
> __mb_cache_entry_unhash(ce);
> }
> - spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
you can't do this because
> list_for_each_safe(l, ltmp, &free_list) {
> __mb_cache_entry_forget(list_entry(l, struct mb_cache_entry,
this takes the spinlock too and you'll deadlock.
Did you test this patch?
-Eric
> e_lru_list), gfp_mask);
> }
> out:
> + list_for_each_entry(cache, &mb_cache_list, c_cache_list) {
> + mb_debug("cache %s (%d)", cache->c_name,
> + atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count));
> + count += atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count);
> + }
> + spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
> +
> return (count / 100) * sysctl_vfs_cache_pressure;
> }
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* re: [PATCH] fix return value for mb_cache_shrink_fn when nr_to_scan > 0
@ 2010-07-22 0:54 Wang Sheng-Hui
2010-07-22 1:06 ` shenghui
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Wang Sheng-Hui @ 2010-07-22 0:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen, agruen, hch, linux-ext4, linux-kernel,
linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, kernel-janitors
Sorry, missed that. Regerated and passed checkpatch.pl check.
Please check it.
Signed-off-by: Wang Sheng-Hui <crosslonelyover@gmail.com>
---
fs/mbcache.c | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/mbcache.c b/fs/mbcache.c
index ec88ff3..603170e 100644
--- a/fs/mbcache.c
+++ b/fs/mbcache.c
@@ -201,21 +201,14 @@ mb_cache_shrink_fn(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
LIST_HEAD(free_list);
struct list_head *l, *ltmp;
+ struct mb_cache *cache;
int count = 0;
- spin_lock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
- list_for_each(l, &mb_cache_list) {
- struct mb_cache *cache =
- list_entry(l, struct mb_cache, c_cache_list);
- mb_debug("cache %s (%d)", cache->c_name,
- atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count));
- count += atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count);
- }
mb_debug("trying to free %d entries", nr_to_scan);
- if (nr_to_scan == 0) {
- spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
+ if (nr_to_scan == 0)
goto out;
- }
+
+ spin_lock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
while (nr_to_scan-- && !list_empty(&mb_cache_lru_list)) {
struct mb_cache_entry *ce =
list_entry(mb_cache_lru_list.next,
@@ -229,6 +222,14 @@ mb_cache_shrink_fn(int nr_to_scan, gfp_t gfp_mask)
e_lru_list), gfp_mask);
}
out:
+ spin_lock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
+ list_for_each_entry(cache, &mb_cache_list, c_cache_list) {
+ mb_debug("cache %s (%d)", cache->c_name,
+ atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count));
+ count += atomic_read(&cache->c_entry_count);
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&mb_cache_spinlock);
+
return (count / 100) * sysctl_vfs_cache_pressure;
}
--
1.6.3.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] fix return value for mb_cache_shrink_fn when nr_to_scan > 0
2010-07-22 0:54 [PATCH] fix return value for mb_cache_shrink_fn when nr_to_scan > 0 Wang Sheng-Hui
@ 2010-07-22 1:06 ` shenghui
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: shenghui @ 2010-07-22 1:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen, agruen, hch, linux-ext4, linux-kernel,
linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, kernel-janitors
Sorry to trouble you all & Thanks for your instructions!
I noticed that Andreas Gruenbacher has submitted patches
on mbcache.
Please ignore mine.
--
Thanks and Best Regards,
shenghui
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-07-22 1:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-07-22 0:54 [PATCH] fix return value for mb_cache_shrink_fn when nr_to_scan > 0 Wang Sheng-Hui
2010-07-22 1:06 ` shenghui
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-07-21 10:53 Wang Sheng-Hui
2010-07-21 14:00 ` Eric Sandeen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox