Re: [PATCH v2 03/12] f2fs: cache: introduce shrinker

[Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>]

On 8/25/26 13:42, Wenjie Qi wrote:
> Hi Chao,
> 
>> spin_lock(&cache->list_lock);
>> list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, next, &cache->lru_list, list) {
>> 	if (isolated >= nr_to_scan)
>> 		break;
>>
>> 	if (f2fs_cache_test_dirty(entry) ||
>> 	    f2fs_cache_test_writeback(entry) ||
>> 	    f2fs_cache_test_locked(entry))
>> 		continue;
>>
>> 	if (f2fs_cache_refcount(entry) != 1)
>> 		continue;
>>
>> 	list_move_tail(&entry->list, &dispose_list);
>> 	isolated++;
>> }
> 
> `isolated` advances only for an eligible entry.  Entries skipped by the state
> and refcount checks do not consume the `nr_to_scan` budget.
> 
> Is `nr_to_scan` intended to bound the number of entries examined here, or only
> the number of reclaimable entries isolated?

Yes, better to consume nr_to_scan no matter what state of entry is.

Thanks,